Hi Thomas, Is XML enough in that case, or would other means to ensure interoperabilty be preferable/welcome? Interoperability with what? GC/DP/Maya/custom software/...? Using what programming languages?
The more information you can give me the better, even if it is aimless rambling. I'm just trying to see if there are facets to this issue I haven't considered yet. -- David Rutten Robert McNeel & Associates ps. are you still in Sweden? On Oct 2, 7:04 pm, twingate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
