XML! Leaves a lot of opportunities open for future interoperability and automated tool-chains.
On Oct 1, 5:09 am, David Rutten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear testers, > > it has become clear that the definition for Grasshopper files (*.wrm) > is causing more and more problems as the versions progress. Although > technically it is flawless, infinitely flexible and very efficient, > it's just too darn easy for humans to make mistakes while writing > reading/writing code. > > This probably means we'll have to redesign the format from the ground > up (while maintaining reading capacity for old files of course) and we > have a number of options open to us. Some of you have expressed > opinions about this in the past so I thought it prudent to ask before > retreating to my coding-cave. > > What we can do: > > 1) Make the format human readable. I.e. store it as plain text or XML. > Or at least have a flavour that is human readable, we could support > both binary and XML files with the same code. > > 2) Make the format open source. I.e. the logic that reads and writes > Grasshopper files could be a separate project which can be referenced > by other applications. Or, if not open source, at least share the dll > that would be required to read/write grasshopper files. > > 3) .... > > any thoughts/suggestions/brain-dumps/complaints/well-wishes are > welcome > > -- > David Rutten > Robert McNeel & Associates
