Because that would seem to be twice as much work.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Rudd [SMTP:user@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:25 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [pcgen] Question about future xml and current custom
> list files
> > From: Keith Davies <keith.davies@...>
> > I say 'may' because things are not completely settled, and conversion
> > can be done a couple of different ways. One is to basically convert
> > exactly what we have to XML. Not a huge net gain, and many of the hacks
> > and implementation problems we face now will still be present. Better,
> > IMO, is to use a more sophisticated schema that better represents the
> > data... but this will require more effort to convert. At this point I'm
> > not entirely sure how well it will automate.
> Why not do both? In phases?
> Phase 1) simple tab'ed lst file to xml'ed lst file.
> Phase 2) full on xml support in PCGen with better formats and everything.
> Phase 3) Profit! ... er ... wrong audience.
> (and, another plug for contained attributes instead of attributes as
> arguments to tags)
> PCGen's release site: http://pcgen.sourceforge.net
> PCGen's FAQ: http://pedertest.officeline.no/PCGen
> PCGen's alpha build: http://rpg.plambert.net/pcgen
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/