We're glad you find this project helpful. We'll try to address this issue ASAP. You can vist https://solothought.com to know recent features. Don't forget to star this repo.

What if you set indentBy to \t\t\t\t, depends on how much indentation you need?

What if you set indentBy to \t\t\t\t, depends on how much indentation you need?

as far as i can tell from examining the code base that option will just overwrite indentation symbols.

i.e. if we set indentBy to ' ' it will make every nested indentation ' '

<trans-unit>
...<source>str</source>
...<target>target</target>
</trans-unit>

making it unfittable for my usecase(trans-unit not indented, even tho nested indentation can be set)

tbh at first i thought this option will help me solve my problem, but unfortunately it doesn't.

also for now i have an mvp version with only trans-units, later it is going to be group of multiple trans-units with XLF specific markup inside, making nesting more deep.

<group>
..<trans-unit id="1">
....<source>
......<g>[</g>str
....</source>
....<target>target</target>
..</trans-unit>
</group>

etc...

First of all, what is the need of this? formatting doesn't cause parsing issue. And I believe, you don't have to show it. What you can do probably is format the whole document through prettify at last.

formatting doesn't cause parsing issue.

I don't remember ever stating this.

What you can do probably is format the whole document through prettify at last.

not sure if i get what you are trying to say, but if you are saying that i can still use XMLBuilder without this feature, Then yes i can and i do. but it is far from optimal.

i am rendering like this:

<trans-unit>
..<source>str</source>
..<target>target</target>
</trans-unit>

and then split on each like and prefixing with appropriate indentation to make it look like this

......<trans-unit>
........<source>str</source>
........<target>target</target>
......</trans-unit>

also i could generate javascript plain object dynamically and only then use XMLBuilder in the end. But that will make project hard dependent on your project and that's not the architecture solution i am up to.

The bottom line this change would make my usage of the library convenient and optimal(runtime complexity wise).

So let me know if you are up to merging this(introducing this functional into the library).

If there is any other work that needs to be done to make it land into master, let me know.

Also i do understand that my usecase sounds esoteric and i would understand if you wouldn't want to merge it. But since it is an easy change that doesn't break things and just allows to start indenting from different level instead of constant 0 literal i decided to try to land it.

Let me check your implementation. However, initialIndentationLevel doesn't seem a good name or generic name to me. So I'l have to think about it.