SignText license opinions

[Steve Slevinski]

Hi Bill,
 
There's no problem with the translation between the 2.  It's quick and 
easy. 
 
The lane is at the end of the compact syntax for 2 reasons.  First, each 
line is a valid build string that works with existing image scripts.  
Second, the lane information can be omitted when writing with a single lane.
 
But now that I look at it, it does seem that the compact syntax is 
backwards when compared to the XML.
 
When looking at
 <sign lane="0">
   <symbol x="10" y="15">01-01-001-01-01-01</symbol>
   <symbol x="20" y="55">02-01-001-01-01-01</symbol>
   <symbol x="70" y="17">03-01-001-01-01-01</symbol>
 </sign>
 
Instead of:
01-01-001-01-01-01,10,15,02-01-001-01-01-01,20,55,03-01-001-01-01-01,70,17,0 

 
Perhaps it should be:
0,10,15,01-01-001-01-01-01,20,55,02-01-001-01-01-01,70,17,03-01-001-01-01-01
 
This transformation was much easier to do by hand, but there is no way 
I'd ever want to do this by hand.
 
I'd prefer to keep the compact syntax as ([id,x,y]*,lane) rather than 
(lane,[x,y,id]*). 
 
Regards,
-Steve
 
Bill Reese wrote:
> Only thing I can see, Steve, is that you give lanes different 
> priority.  In XML syntax it's first, before the symbols- in compact 
> syntax it's last, after the symbols.  Would keeping it first in the 
> compact syntax allow a smoother translation between the two?
>
> Bill



____________________________________________

SW-L SignWriting List

Post Message
SW-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu

List Archives and Help
http://www.signwriting.org/forums/swlist/

Change Email Settings
http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/sw-l