Talk:File Format for Scribus 1.3.x: Difference between revisions
m (Reverted edit of 58.238.131.22, changed back to last version by Mhanski) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==The big picture== | |||
I wonder if there might be a shift toward something like classes in the XML format. | |||
If you look at .sla files, there is a ''tremendous'' amount of repetitiveness in the files, and, with the way that text is depicted, it ends up being broken up, even within an individual text frame. | |||
If one could initialize some classes at the beginning, which might apply to frame features, paragraph styles, and so on, then in the body of the file one would only need to refer to the class. Certainly, one has to account for the seemingly infinite possibilities of various parameters, but for an individual project there probably aren't so many different features used. | |||
It would seem that using classes might allow for easier portability of features from one project to another, and also more ease in creation of DTDs for translation of Scribus files to other formats, such as HTML. | |||
Latest revision as of 13:57, 4 July 2006
The big picture
I wonder if there might be a shift toward something like classes in the XML format. If you look at .sla files, there is a tremendous amount of repetitiveness in the files, and, with the way that text is depicted, it ends up being broken up, even within an individual text frame.
If one could initialize some classes at the beginning, which might apply to frame features, paragraph styles, and so on, then in the body of the file one would only need to refer to the class. Certainly, one has to account for the seemingly infinite possibilities of various parameters, but for an individual project there probably aren't so many different features used.
It would seem that using classes might allow for easier portability of features from one project to another, and also more ease in creation of DTDs for translation of Scribus files to other formats, such as HTML.