[ODE] GUI Editor, to XML or not?

[William Denniss]

On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 21:48, Jani Laakso wrote:
> Frederic Marmond wrote:
> 
> > I do agree that XML is very open and so on...
> > But:
> > - to introduce a big overhead in file size
> > - load/save time may be long (parser)
> 
> This is a possibility, hence XML->binary conversion is needed sometimes 
> even in development but usually on a release package.
> 
> > So, It would be nice to have a XML<->binary converter.
> 
> I'd say "one way" XML->binary is sufficient. Do you see enough usage for 
> binary->XML converter? I'd stick to XML when making development.
> 
> On a very large development user should divide one gigantic definition 
> file to smaller ones. Perhaps the editor could help a bit on this divide 
> and conquer task, but I leave this area for editor maker's to discuss.
> 
> I'd say the binary format is something that most release quality 
> products need, I have a feeling that most developers comes up with 
> somewhat different (!) solutions based on their needs on that particular 
> application.
> 
> So, I'd recommend editor makers to concentrate into XML as the main 
> "developer friendly" format and let application developers to worry 
> about their own binary formats. Developing XML->custom format should be 
> pretty straightforward.

that's definitely the way I see it too - documenting a text format is
also much easier than than a binary one.

Will.