[linux-dvb] Re: channels.conf syntax?

[Manu Abraham <manu@kromtek.com>]

Hi,
	I don't think things have to be made compicated, just to incorporate XML. 
Moreover C++ is a burden. I believe things have to be made small and simple 
(KISS). Small is really beautiful !!

Regards,
Manu

On Wednesday 19 November 2003 14:39, you wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Jamie Honan wrote:
> >  ... much good stuff elided ...
> >
> > > Which means to scan the range +/- 150kHz around each frequency (unless
> >
> > Isn't it +/- 125 Khz?
>
> Whoops, yeah, that too... Ahem. (not so good at this working from memory
> thing - at least I got channel 6 right :) [Pretty sure it's +/- 166667
> Hz for the UK too...]
>
> > I was going to use something like this, in scconf format:
> >
> > tune_possibilities Australia {
> >         type = "TV";
> >         offsets = 0,-125,125;
> >         bandwidth = "7Mhz";
> >         frequencies = 177500, 184500, 191500, 198500, 212500, 219500,
> > 226500, 529500, 536500, 543500, 550500, 557500, 564500, 571500, 578500,
> > 585500, 592500, 599500, 606500, 613500, 620500, 627500, 634500, 641500,
> > 648500, 655500, 662500, 669500, 676500, 683500, 690500, 697500, 704500,
> > 711500, 718500, 725500, 732500, 739500, 746500, 753500, 760500, 767500,
> > 774500, 781500, 788500, 795500, 802500, 809500, 816500;
> > }
>
> Mmmmm, pretty and compact. XML is neither of those things.
>
> > I've started documenting scconf. Here is my tongue-in-cheek
> > introduction:
>
> ...
>
> > Why doesn't it have X, why don't you use XML?
> > =============================================
> >
> > Maybe it should. Maybe XML is the answer. Maybe a database is more
> > appropriate.
>
> Just because you use XML doesn't mean you need to link against a huge
> library. In my day job we use XML to describe game objects, model node
> hierarchies, settings files, etc. - pretty much anything that isn't a big
> block of binary data, i.e. a texture or a triangle array. We make minor
> changes to file formats quite a bit, usually for adding features.
>
> To parse the XML, we started off with linking against an XML parsing
> library (I think it was Xerces - this was in 2000 or 2001 'tho). It was
> huge and slow. So we decided to write our own and stick to a subset of
> XML: No attributes in tags and only one text string associated with each
> tag (which must come before any child tags).
>
> This made the parsing of the file really fast and easy, and the code to do
> it is very small. But it still meant we can edit and verify our files with
> any XML editor, since it is still legal XML (although vim/Notepad remains
> the most popular editor :)
>
> > It's all a trade-off. You choose. This is only a document.
>
> I think if you agree to use a subset of XML, you can write your own parser
> with no more difficulty than you would for any other file format, while
> keeping all the benefits and fuzzy goodness of XML :) [Although I note
> that scconf has data types built in, which is not the case with XML]
>
> > Jamie
>
> {P^/



-- 
Info:
To unsubscribe send a mail to ecartis@linuxtv.org with "unsubscribe linux-dvb" as subject.