[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
tblanchard@mac.com wrote:
> Yeah. thats what you would want, but thats not an XML PList - (defined
> as what the PList serializer will write out). It was a counter to "now
> PLists are XML". The xmlization of plists has not been a good thing.
If it's just meant to be an interoperability syntax, then it might not
be such a bad thing. For sure writing a parser for the vanilla PList
syntax is rather easy, but with the XML syntax you can skip that step
and ease implementation (for something this simple the benefits are less
clear of course). It sure is an ugly format, but computers don't know
that much in the area of aesthetics.
--
Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Research Engineer, Expway
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
|
