RE: XML was RE: [GD-General] RE: A portable preferences library

[Ivan-Assen I. <as...@ha...>]

> The most fancy on the PC is msxml, it doesn't everything, .NET basically
> uses it.

Actually, I remember reading an article comparing the performance of
MSXML (used via COM interop) with the .NET XML classes, so I believe they
are different. The .NET classes are written in C# (and are a bit slower).

About vertex data: we have a dual-pass data processing scheme, where
first a simple dumb Max plugin dumps all the data Max provides into a verbose
format. The second pass reads the raw vertex data, builds meshes, 
optimizes, etc. and prepares single-seek binary files. It is convenient to
separate the flaky DLL-hell Max SDK part from the part the does the real work.

In such a scenario, I believe it's OK to use XML for the first format.
Maybe when the assets grow to be in the order of hundreds or thousands
of meshes, it will show on the build time.

I'll repeat myself and say Infopath adds a whole new dimension of usefullness
to XML. If you think IE showing XMLs color-coded and collapsible,
or even with a custom stylesheet, is cool, imagine building a sensible
user interface for editing complex structures, with validation, in hours
not days.