Hi, I'm currently working on some patches to the UDDF export format, to address a few issues which I'm seeing in the files.
For example, I've separated buddies out, and linked to multiply buddies, rather than the current method which is to always link to a single buddy, which may actually be several in a comma separated list. However, I'm noticing some big differences from the UDDF specification. I'm not sure if this is essentially a bug in the UDDF export, or if I'm missing something fundamental. It seems that the implementer would have made a concious effort to implement it in this way, and I can't find a reason why. I'm referring to the UDDF spec here: http://www.uddf.org/ Here are a few examples of differences I've found: In Subsurface UDDF, mutliple <dive_site> elements under <uddf> in the following form: <dive_site id="Corsair Reef"> <name>Corsair Reef</name> <geography> <location>Corsair Reef</location> <gps> <latitude>-4.610968</latitude> <longitude>55.407003</longitude> </gps> </geography> </dive_site> <dive_site id="Aquarium"> <name>Aquarium</name> <geography> <location>Aquarium</location> <gps> <latitude>-4.598471</latitude> <longitude>55.415920</longitude> </gps> </geography> </dive_site> In the UDDF spec, a single <divesite> (no '_'), containing 1..n <divebase> and 1..n <site> <divesite> <divebase id="db-1"> <!-- here description of the first dive base --> </divebase> <divebase id="db-2"> <!-- here description of the second dive base --> </divebase> <divebase id="db-3"> <!-- here description of the third dive base --> </divebase> <!-- here more <divebase> elements if necessary --> <site id="site-1"> <!-- here description of the first dive site --> </site> <site id="site-2"> <!-- here description of the second dive site --> </site> .... etc (http://www.streit.cc/extern/uddf_v320/en/divesite.html) Also, linking of sites/buddies to profiles is done in Subsurface UDDF as: <buddy_ref ref="Jxxxx xxxx, Sxxxxx xxxxxx"/> <dive_site_ref ref="Stoney Cove"/> In the UDDF spec, it should be: <link ref="Jxxxx xxxx, Sxxxxx xxxxxx"/> <link ref="Stoney Cove"/> (http://www.streit.cc/extern/uddf_v320/en/sections_profiledata.html) Some input would be gratefully received. I'd also like to know if there are going to be barriers to having such a patch accepted. Thanks MartinHi, I'm currently working on some patches to the UDDF export format, to address a few issues which I'm seeing in the files. For example, I've separated buddies out, and linked to multiply buddies, rather than the current method which is to always link to a single buddy, which may actually be several in a comma separated list. However, I'm noticing some big differences from the UDDF specification. I'm not sure if this is essentially a bug in the UDDF export, or if I'm missing something fundamental. It seems that the implementer would have made a concious effort to implement it in this way, and I can't find a reason why. I'm referring to the UDDF spec here: http://www.uddf.org/ Here are a few examples of differences I've found: In Subsurface UDDF, mutliple <dive_site> elements under <uddf> in the following form: <dive_site id="Corsair Reef"> <name>Corsair Reef</name> <geography> <location>Corsair Reef</location> <gps> <latitude>-4.610968</latitude> <longitude>55.407003</longitude> </gps> </geography> </dive_site> <dive_site id="Aquarium"> <name>Aquarium</name> <geography> <location>Aquarium</location> <gps> <latitude>-4.598471</latitude> <longitude>55.415920</longitude> </gps> </geography> </dive_site> In the UDDF spec, a single <divesite> (no '_'), containing 1..n <divebase> and 1..n <site> <divesite> <divebase id="db-1"> <!-- here description of the first dive base --> </divebase> <divebase id="db-2"> <!-- here description of the second dive base --> </divebase> <divebase id="db-3"> <!-- here description of the third dive base --> </divebase> <!-- here more <divebase> elements if necessary --> <site id="site-1"> <!-- here description of the first dive site --> </site> <site id="site-2"> <!-- here description of the second dive site --> </site> .... etc (http://www.streit.cc/extern/uddf_v320/en/divesite.html) Also, linking of sites/buddies to profiles is done in Subsurface UDDF as: <buddy_ref ref="Jxxxx xxxx, Sxxxxx xxxxxx"/> <dive_site_ref ref="Stoney Cove"/> In the UDDF spec, it should be: <link ref="Jxxxx xxxx, Sxxxxx xxxxxx"/> <link ref="Stoney Cove"/> (http://www.streit.cc/extern/uddf_v320/en/sections_profiledata.html) Some input would be gratefully received. I'd also like to know if there are going to be barriers to having such a patch accepted. Thanks Martin _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
