Ok guys, you persuaded me. I will use XML. It is true that by using built-in XML support in Qt, everything will be much simpler than writing our own parser. This is the main argument that made me change my mind. Cestmir 2012/1/22 Tomáš Zámečník <pulcik@xxxxxxxx>: > I am fox xml too. > We will also have ini file. (But there is written only the path to data > directory (where the settings file is stored)) > T. > >> ------------ Původní zpráva ------------ >> Od: Bohdan Maslowski <bohdan.maslowski@xxxxxxxxx> >> Předmět: [glideplan_swproj] Re: Settings file format >> Datum: 21.1.2012 20:08:10 >> ---------------------------------------- >> Hi! >> >> I think xml is a better choice. Some arguments: >> >> - no need to write a parser >> - everyone knows the syntax >> - easy validation >> >> Users probably won't be editing the settings file directly anyway. >> >> Also, there is a third choice: ini files. But still, xml is better in case >> we need to save structured or binary data sometime. >> >> Bohdan >> >> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Cestmir Houska <czestmyr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > Hi everyone! >> > >> > I am about to start working on saving and loading the settings from a >> > file. The question on everyone is now: >> > >> > Which file format would you prefer for settings? XML or our own format? >> > >> > This problem might seem unimportant, but starts to gain significance >> > as soon as one wants to edit the settings via a text editor, which >> > might sometimes be useful. I personally am for our own format, because >> > XML can be often cumbersome and ugly. >> > >> > Cestmir >> > >> > To visit archive or unsubscribe, follow: >> > //www.freelists.org/list/glideplan_swproj >> > >> >> >> > > To visit archive or unsubscribe, follow: > //www.freelists.org/list/glideplan_swproj To visit archive or unsubscribe, follow: //www.freelists.org/list/glideplan_swproj