On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 10:21:30 +0100, Melchior wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Yes, because the need to have many files per airport was actually your > only argument. I based my final suggestion on that "requirement". But, > ok, let's go with the on-file-per-airport approach. I actually find > Curt's Airports/L/LO/LOX/LOXT.xml suggestion the sanest of all. .._why_ "Airports/L/LO/LOX/LOXT.xml" and not "Airports/L/LO/LOX/LOXT/LOXT.xml etc??? 8o) ..and, why "Airports/L/O/X/LOXT.xml" and not "Airports/L/O/X/T/LOXT.xml" etc??? 8o) ..I dunno about you guys, FG, SG or the machines, but both "Airports/L/LO/LOX/LOXT/LOXT.xml" and "Airports/L/O/X/T/LOXT.xml" adding that final letter level, looks saner to my eyes. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
