Request feedback on modified XML reference on wikia

[daniel.santos]

Hello all.  I've updated most of the wikia XML specification pages, mostly reformatting them for prettiness (they are also cut & paste-able pages that are still valid xmls) and added some of the info for GAE and I would like some feedback.

• Tech_XML
• Resource_XML
• Faction_XML
• Upgrade_XML
• Unit_XML (still incomplete for GAE features)

Also, if anybody sees errors (grammatical, spelling, factual, etc.) please feel free to log in and fix em yourself!  I also would like feedback about if people mind the GAE stuff being in these specifications or not.  All GAE-specific XML is notated as such with a start and end comment tag and it's in dark blue.

EDIT: Also, what's a good character width to use?  I like to keep text files formatted to a max 80 character width, but for programming GAE, I decided that 80 was too little and have been using a 100 character width.  However, on the unit.xml, I used 120 characters because 100 caused the comments to have to be wrapped too many times.  Maybe I can figure out some css and/or HTML hacks that will allow me to have comments dynamically wrapped (and still be real XML )

[titi]

I had a quick look at it.
Its ok for me, but there are is a problems with the width of the xml structures inside the wiki.
You cannot see the full width in the wiki, and thats really annoying ( especially in the unit xml ).
You always have to use the scrollbar to see the whole line!

For the units xml its probably a good idea to have separate xmls for GAE and glest itself. There are too many features in GAE, so I would prefer separated wiki entries for GAEs and glests units xml.

[wciow]

I agree that there should be a separate page for purely Glest tags so as not to confuse people trying to mod Glest. However, since people modding for GAE will have to know all the tags, including the standard Glest ones, its best if they are explained together.

[Omega]

The character width is fine, and the updates look good. Didn't look to closely, but no visible errors.

Now, I can't say wether or not it improved because I don't remember what it used to look like!  :lol: