On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:57:35PM +0200, RaphaÃl Quinet <quinet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> included directly while others are included by reference. The main
> advantage of using XML is that it can easily be debugged by hand. The
> other arguments that have been discussed so far (for or against XML)
> are not so significant.
Opinions differ... for me, debugging is absolutely unimportant. I never
had to debug any xcf file, and I don't really want to change that :)
An XML format can be easily extended or updated, and extending xcf was a
pain, with xml at least this could become easier.
> and edited by humans, let's go for XML. If we want something compact
> and efficient, let's go for something else.
Indeed, "if". Efficiency is not the problem here (efficiency is much more
a problem with the underlying image data storage, i.e. use flat or tiled
areas etc.). XML isn't that inefficient compared to other serialization
schemes, especially when this has to be done on load/save only, while it
might be useful to dynamically swap in/out image data from the file (as
some modern os'es do, while others rely on copying everything to swap
first, as the gimp does :)
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@xxxxxxxx |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
