Page 1 of 1


Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 2:34 pm
by jamesholt
From ... _swv10.pdf
Classic Palette Brochure wrote:Screen layouts and network communications use XML, making it easy to communicate with other cool products (and not just ours) over the network.
I haven't seen any reference to XML or details of the Palette network protocols in the current documentation. Is there something I'm missing?

Using XML for some configuration files would present a great opportunity to make the software infinitely customisable by allowing advanced users to mix and match interface elements as they please (themeing so to say) - no more complaints about this-and-that colour not being right for so-and-so, users with silver palettes could arrange the S&M bubbles (ooh eer, kinky!) on screen to match the physical tile layout, users could hide elements of the interface they don't like, etc etc... far beyond the current 5 "console personality" options.

Adding the ability to export show files into a (reduced) XML format and opening up network protocols would bring new power to programs like FocusTrack (e.g. it could tell the desk to bring up a position look based on its id hash over a LAN) and maybe start a push for an XML-based upgrade to the ASCII Light Cues file format (read: pseudo-standardisation).

Sure it's all a bit pie-in-the-sky, but this software is supposed to be future-proof and leading the way... thoughts?


Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:20 pm
by BobbyHarrell
All interesting ideas that we need to dialogue about more.


Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:50 pm
by JohnGrimshaw
There are quite a few inaccuracies with the Strand documentation (the software development is moving faster then the marketing dept). I tend to NOT give these to clients.

That said, the whole XML issue does open some real potential for those personalised "tweaks" that an operator would like - including Software Settings, Hardware Settings, screen colours, soft key layouts, multiple language support, default show configuration(s), and so on.

It would also allow for "portability" of these settings.

Presumably, it would be a programming nightmare to implement, but bitten of a chunk at a time it could work. There are other features that I would like to see happen first though!


Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:52 pm
by AlanMartello
And from experience, Microsoft has gone down that path with their latest development environments (Visual Studio 2005 and 2008). Developers could tweak to their hearts content. Unfortunately things are so confusing, convoluted and if you place one character wrong, the whole thing breaks.

It's worse than editing the registry and (basically) no one touches it.

Flexible customization is a good idea. XML is likely not the right approach.

Thanks for calling this to our attention. The marketing types have been made aware of the lingering inaccuracies.