On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 12:51:40AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: [snip] > XML for this purpose is ugly as well. You can use XML for seldomly used > applications, but not for such important things. Hell, compare "set > antialias=1" with the monster we are talking about - 8..9 times of the > code size. It is already to much for a single boolean value. Where > should all this end? In a 10Ghz machine with DDR5000 RAM, using 90% of > the CPU time to parse the useless metadata? [snip] My $0.02 suggestion: nobody says you can't encode XML in a compact form. Use single bytes/characters to represent start tags and the same char + 128 for the corresponding end tags, with other appropriate encodings for #CDATA, etc.. You can always write a convertor to convert to/from this compact representation to full-fledged, "bloated", human-(un)readable XML. Or better yet, structure the config format so that it's easily convertible to/from XML. XML was meant to be an *interchange* format anyway, not an *internal* format. As long as you have a homomorphism between the two formats, everything should be fine. This has the added advantage of not requiring binary (i.e., non-ASCII) representation. T -- "You know, maybe we don't *need* enemies." "Yeah, best friends are about all I can take." -- Calvin & Hobbes
Attachment:
pgpK5g0TDSu1J.pgp
Description: PGP signature