Re: [pcgen-xml] Expanded pcg proposal
- Brass Tilde wrote:
>thewell, a number of reasons:
>Tell me about it.
>I have to ask why adherence to the OpenDocument format is so important.
>I'm not saying it isn't, just asking why it is. What does it gain us
>besides being able to say that it's true?
1) It'll be a lot easier for people to write code against it, because
vast chunks of our file format have a full spec as well as sample code
what this means is that for the files that are exactly the same
(Manifest.xml, settings.xml, mimetype, meta.xml), we have an example
implementation, and a ton of doco for other people to use.
2) It means we have to do less work to define specific files
3) Any tools for OpenDocument files stand a reasonable chance working
with our files if they are for organization or file management and
such. We are essentially using the the same container, with a different
payload. the closer we can get on the container, the more likely it is
that our files will be usable in other environments. (the only parts of
the open document spec we are not implementing is content.xml and
styles.xml - both explicitly related to payload)
>Fortunately, there are alternatives that *do* recognize the content-typeWell, and with the rise of opendocument, I don't expect us to be the
>tag, such as Firefox, so I encourage everyone to use that whenever I
last project that moves to this type of file format. Essentially the
container portion of opendocument can spread pretty far and wide. The
capability to store this much metadata in the file is IMHO sweet.
>And given that every OS that is currently capable of running PCGen alsoI deffinitly agree. I was considering xpcg or orpgpcg, I'm deffinitly
>supports so-called "long" file names, I don't think that extension
>should be limited to three characters, and risk overlapping with
willing to look at other ideas
>If one recognizes that Windows and *nix were originally targeted towardsDeffinitly
>different audiences, the problems become easier to accept. They are
>both migrating towards the same thing, though.
Just getting the built-in editors to work well has been an effort for a number of years now. I think that, if the code team were
to focus solely on the editors, they'd work on getting just the flat-file stuff working first before going towards the zipped
Paul W. King
OGL/PL/TM Chimp, Data Gibbon
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Edwin Holley
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 7:05 PM
Subject: RE: [pcgen-xml] Re: Expanded pcg proposal
Ok ... what about an editor for the data sets, which could support the zipped or unzipped data sets automatically.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/130 - Release Date: 10/12/2005