Re: [binarycloud-dev] BC XML definitons format (XML vs. SML)

[Alex B. <en...@tu...>]

yeah,

I think:
    -SML as the standard, we'll of course allow any custom extensions that
have attribute support.

for all pure-xml files, I prefer XML by far.

-a

> Hi Manuel, Alex,
>=20
>>> I'm kinda unsure. I like both and both is descriptive as well as
>>> standardized ;-) But, in the bcp we use the "simple" format
>>> and maybe we should keep this convetion throughout.
>>>=20
>>> What are you're thoughts on this?
>>=20
>> I think you are right, because XML is only really extensible if
>> you can later add tags to values to extend the meaning of those
>> values. Since you can=B4t have tags in tag attributes, it is better
>> to use SML.
>=20
> Yes this is a good point. And it would be a mess to rewrite the entire
> xml->php behaviour at a later point.
>=20
> I.e if we want to extend the name tag (just an example, makes not very mu=
ch
> sense in this case):
>=20
> <bc:module>
> <name>
>   <internal>BcHelloWorld</internal>
>   <descriptive>Hello World</descriptive>
> </name>
> ..
> </bc:module>
>=20
> Ok, the readbility lacks, especially for very short tags (i.e. <bc:img
> id=3D"23" />). But I think it's worth the effort. At a later point we can
> support parameters if users want to use it, or they can implement their o=
wn
> compiler that handles them)
>=20
>> BTW, MetaL XML files are fully SML.
> That's exactly what brought up this thought here :-)
>=20
> Andi
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> binarycloud-dev mailing list
> bin...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/binarycloud-dev
>=20