Calling conventions - OT: XML

[Mike]

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:26:24 +0100, Bill Baxter  
<dnewsgroup at billbaxter.com> wrote:

> Mike wrote:
>>  What's a better alternative to XML? I mean generally, not for this  
>> proposal. I'd really like to know that - a format that can represent  
>> trees easily and is easily readable.
>
> Lisp.
> Or YAML, or JSON.  All much more readable than XML.

Hmm ... thanks for the suggestions. I've asked because I've based my pet  
project on XML ...
Maybe I've just done too much HTML to find XML more readable than YAML.  
And JSON ... maybe I've done too much HTML to hate everything that's  
related to JavaScript :)

Here's the actual plugins.xml file I currently generate and use:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- Alison Audiolab Plugin Database -->
<plugindb>
     <plugin type="VST" uniqueId="ANGE" name="Angelina" vendor="Big  
Tick">C:\Programme\Ableton\vsti\angelina\angelina.dll</plugin>
     <plugin type="VST" uniqueId="adl1" name="Analogic Delay"  
vendor="Daniel Bosshard">C:\Programme\Ableton\vsti\dubtools\Analogic  
Delay.dll</plugin>
     <plugin type="VST" uniqueId="bdl1" name="Bionic Delay" vendor="Daniel  
Bosshard">C:\Programme\Ableton\vsti\dubtools\Bionic Delay.dll</plugin>
[snip]
</plugindb>

Later on there should be support for other plugin types (a native plugin  
format using DDL, DirectX, Buzz if I get extern (C++) to work with Buzz  
plugins, LADSPA if I ever port to Linux, etc.) and every type needs other  
attributes. Doesn't XML suit this perfectly?

-Mike

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/