UDDF Export Format

[Miika Turkia]

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Long, Martin <martin at longhome.co.uk> wrote:

> 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.
>

The UDDF export format is from the time when there was no defined format
when having multiple buddies. Thus the separator could have been anything.
Now that we officially separate buddies with comma, it is easy to divide
the buddies properly in UDDF export.


> 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.
>

The format is either from an older version of UDDF specification or from a
sample divelog from other software that exported in UDDF format. I cannot
currently find UDDF v1.0 specification from anywhere (even though I have
the sample UDDF file that with this syntax and stating UDDF version 1.0),
so I cannot make sure. But then again it is better to just update to
current UDDF specification...


> 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.
>

 Sure, this will be accepted. We are more than happy to accept improvements
on this area. I am sure there are quite a few other "gems" within the UDDF
import and export :D

miika
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/pipermail/subsurface/attachments/20141209/7c04d795/attachment.html>