On Tuesday 12 July 2005 11:02, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > 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... OK, I'll add "pname=<...>". I'll make it optional though - not everyone (i.e. me :) wants it for their uses. > > >>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. how about? name=<...> for long name, not optional. sname=<...> for short name, optional. > > >>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? :-) That is my opinion too - does anyone else have any feelings about this?
