Date   : Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:46:22 +0200
From   : "Mark de Weger" <mark@...>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE : UEF Specification 0.9

I agree with Robert and others that an XML-based format with pointers (URLs)
to the relevant files would be the best.

Just FYI, such a format already exists and is used by my BBC emulator
frontend BeebEF (available from TBL!). The DTD is at the end of this mail.
The format includes such things as program file (disc images--basically any
format), pictures, box cover images, various documentation, free text, and
information about how an emulator should handle the program (PAGE at E00,
etc.) I also wrote a style sheet so the XML file, with all related info, can
be viewed as a nice HTML page.

I've thought about taking BeebEF one step further as follows. Currently, you
have to set up BeebEF with your own local BBC programs, pictures, docs, etc.
My idea would be to set up a Web server at which all Beeb-related info is
stored according to the structure defined in the DTD, using an XML file or
database. Then BeebEF could be converted into a client program that connects
to the Web server, displays everything stored on this Web server (i.e.,
programs, pictures, docs, etc., nicely related to eachother) and then allows
you to download the stuff you want and install it ready for use in the
current BeebEF and thereby also all emulators.

Unfortunately I cannot (yet) setup my own Web server (let alone a back-end
database) and I spend quite a lot of time during "real" work (one project
involves Biztalk... hey... maybe...).

But I'd happily exchange any ideas on this subject.

Cheers,
Mark.


P.S. The DTD:

<!ELEMENT programs (version,publisher*)>
  <!ELEMENT beebef-version (#PCDATA)>
  <!ELEMENT publisher (publisher-name,program)*>
    <!ELEMENT publisher-name (#PCDATA)>
    <!ELEMENT program (program-name, program-type, file-url, favourite,
e00dfs, picture-url?,
                       boxcover-url?, comments?, emuwarnings?, doclinks?)>
      <!ELEMENT program-name (#PCDATA)>
      <!ELEMENT program-type (#PCDATA)>
      <!ELEMENT file-url (#PCDATA)>
      <!ELEMENT favourite (#PCDATA)>
      <!ELEMENT e00dfs (#PCDATA)>
      <!ELEMENT picture-url (#PCDATA)>
      <!ELEMENT boxcover-url (#PCDATA)>
      <!ELEMENT comments (commentline)+>
        <!ELEMENT commentline (#PCDATA)>
      <!ELEMENT emuwarnings (emuwarning)+>
        <!ELEMENT emuwarning (emuname?,warningtext?)>
          <!ELEMENT emu-name (#PCDATA)>
          <!ELEMENT warningtext (#PCDATA)>
      <!ELEMENT doclinks (doclink)+>
        <!ELEMENT doclink (doc-name?,doc-url?)>
          <!ELEMENT doc-name (#PCDATA)>
          <!ELEMENT doc-url (#PCDATA)>



> Mark Usher wrote:
> > >From an archiving point of view, I think this is a good way to go. The
> > original program/tape/disc can always be extracted, but having the extra
> > info with it is nice. Obviously one file is cleaner, but as
> Wouter mentioned
> > it is also nice to have all "other" infomation in a seperate
> file. What I
> > like best with the single file, is the ability to have everything -
> > including multi file loads within a single "game" archive,
> making the images
> > and the emulators alot easier to use.
>
> I some more thoughts on this...
>
> If we needed a "one file for everything" kind of format, why was XML
> considered?  With UEF, users will always be dependent on software
> written just to process the UEF format.  It's a bit like re-inventing a
> filing system within a file (with severe limitations), IMO.
>
> Besides, I thought binary "chunked" formats were "out" by now.  XML is
> basically the same idea, just ASCII'fied and standardized and formalized
> beyond all recognition.
>
> No, store each logical chunk of information in separate files, each file
> in a format widely accepted and created for that specific use.  Often,
> as for images or text, there are *many* potential format.  Pick one
> today, pick another tomorrow, as long as they're widely used, you'll
> hardly notice the difference, ever.
>
> Notice how UEF (currently) supports only ASCII text and raw image
> files.  I wouldn't want to put the PDFs, DOCs, JPEGs and GIFs strewn
> around TBL! archive into UEFs.
>
> Thomas, I think the most useful kind of data you could put in a
> "instructions", "inlay scans" or "cheats" chunk would be an URL.
>
> I agree that BBC emulators need a *proper* disk and tape imaging format,
> and also state snapshots to some degree.  UEF seem to be great,
> especially if the disk part will be at least as comprehensive as FDI.
>
> But leave the other data where it belongs, in separate files which I can
> view with a normal file viewer.  Lump everything into one directory per
> software title, or use a consistent file naming scheme, as I've
> attempted at TBL!.
>
> Do we need the extra UEF layer of complexity?  If I want to edit some
> text in a game's instructions, can I simply double click the UEF icon,
> as I can with a DOC file?  If I want to replace a cover scan with a
> higher resolution one, or I'd like to add scans of ads or reviews, will
> it be as simply as dragging and dropping in Windows Explorer?
>
> Ah well, enough rethorics - I'm a bit influenced by the election
> campaigns here in Norway... ;-)
>
> Thomas, you're doing a fantastic job for the Electron and BBC community,
> never doubt that.  But at least my point of view on
> "chunked-formats-with-everything" should be clear by now!  :-)
>
>
> Cheers,
> Robert