[Openicc] Proposed "ucmm" display profile configuration convention used by ArgyllCMS.

Graeme Gill graeme at argyllcms.com
Mon Jun 2 06:11:00 PDT 2008

Stefan Döhla wrote:
> good to hear that there's some momentum for a Linux CMM. But I'm 
> curious: What's the reason for another format (JSON) instead of XML or a 
> simple INI file? XML is much more readable and there's a gazillion 
> libraries for creating/parsing/modifying XML documents. And as a side 
> note - by defining an XML schema there are even further possibilities 
> (like e.g. automatic validity checking, full element documentation 
> inside the schema, strict element types, ...). A schema is sufficient as 
> documentation/specification for the file format (certainly, only if it 
> includes the semantics of the fields).

I wouldn't call JSON "another" format, it is one of a small number
of very popular such formats. INI files don't do hierarchies very well.
I disagree that XML is more readable, I find it quite un-readable,
and I don't think that as a format designed for markup, it is suitable
for this particular purpose. I also don't see that much value in validity
checking, since the semantics of what is a valid configuration or
not can't be fully represented in a schema. All of the XML libraries
I've seen are also rather heavy weight by comparison to Lloyd Hilaiel's YAJL,
and therefore didn't suite the purpose.
The other format I seriously considered is YAML, and while I think
that it is even more human readable, I think that it's hierarchy scheme
makes it difficult to check the scope of it's elements in the same way
typical code editors allow checking bracket nesting. The same drawback
applies to XML.

Graeme Gill.

More information about the openicc mailing list