Felix Domke wrote: > Andrew de Quincey wrote: > > Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > >>I vote for adding the provider_name to the service info > >>in the multiplex file (can't think of a better place > >>to put it). > > Will that not add lots of duplicate string entries though, again increasing > > the file size? I suppose another option as Felix suggests would be to have > > just the ID in the multiplex file and the actual strings in another.. of > > course we then get the problem of clashing provider IDs :( > Well, it would be nothing more than some kind of compression. all > different provider_names must be collected, and there must be something > like a map at the start which maps them to the numbers. I still think it isn't worth it. OTOH you have to build the map anyway when loading, so you can group/sort your services by provider, so it might make sense to save it in that format... > >>BTW, it seems this file has undefined character encoding? > >>We should define the encoding to be utf-8. > > Yeah - I was thinking of UTF8, but never actually wrote it down anywhere. > what's about the special DVB chars? I vote for just including them, of > course UTF-8 encoded. You mean to not store long and short service name, but instead store the DVB string? Hm. (IIRC in name fields only emphasis on and off control chars are allowed, with the purpose of signifying a possible short service name). How about storing the short name only when it is different from the long name? Easier to read and edit, and saves parsing work. > >>Will there be a "list of lists"? I.e. how is the order of > >>favourites lists in the menu defined (to make sure that > >>"daddy's list" comes first)? > >>Flash file systems don't waste much space for small files, so > >>having a number of small files is not an issue. > > hmm, yeah, you'd have to have an index file. Do you think we need a full > > hierarchical structure though? Thats what was causing headaches for me. > A stupid idea, just to think about that option: > > What's about sorting the filenames (of the lists), thus defining the > list? (The name of the lists are defined inside the list..) > > But I agree that this is probably going to be a bad idea. the advantage > would be that you could import favourites without editing any file, the > disadvantage is that, on hierarchies, the "directories" can't be named. I'm not convinced about the hierarchy thing. Sane people will only have a small number of favourite lists. Why spend time supporting insanity? :-) Johannes
