WDYT of using key-value encoding rather than INI encoding?
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- G-code
- Stars
- 73
- Forks
- 23
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
I believe a structured encoding for key-value might be easier to parse.
For instance:
unit16_t keySize;
char* key;
uint16_t valueSize;
char* value;
The specification might add a limit like 128 bytes for the maximum key and value, so the consumers can reject files if a key or value exceeds 128.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
This is a design proposal to replace INI encoding with structured key-value records and possibly impose 128-byte key and value limits. Start by reviewing the current INI specification and how consumers parse it. Done means reaching a decision on the encoding and limits, with the specification and affected consumers identified.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- tooling
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100