Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [pcgen-xml] Re: XML Design Guidelines

Expand Messages
  • Peter Kahle
    ... *snip* ... Well, given what you said above about keeping the number of elements down (did you mean attributes?) why not define an attribute, call it
    Message 1 of 13 , Feb 5, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 11:36:26AM -0800, Keith Davies wrote:
      > Peter Kahle wrote on Tue Feb 5 10:48:15 2002:

      *snip*

      > Note that I changed the <entry> to a simple <ref>... I'd like to keep
      > the number of element types down, if I can, and <entry> doesn't tell
      > me anything a <ref> doesn't.
      >
      > > Also, now looking at it, might it be a good idea to give a hint to
      > > either the list-entries or the entrys themselves as to what to do with
      > > the entries? either add or list, or some other semantic? This might
      > > replace my version above, to look like:
      >
      > This I could see a benefit to, because references to lists often will
      > be treated differently. How 'bout
      >
      > <list-entries list-id="race-list.fr">
      > <list-ref refid="race-list.fr.human"/>
      > <list-ref refid="race-list.fr.elf"/>
      > <list-ref refid="race-list.fr.dwarf"/>
      > <ref refid="race.custom.gimblatt"/>
      > </list-entries>
      >
      > This makes it obvious to the processor that the reference is pointing
      > to a list.

      Well, given what you said above about keeping the number of elements
      down (did you mean attributes?) why not define an attribute, call it
      reftype, with two possible values (at this point) "item" and "list" (I'm
      open for suggestions on item, but it's the best I could come up with on
      short notice.) and default it to item. That way, you get the same effect
      as above, without the extra element, and with only a little more typing:

      <list-entries list-id="race-list.fr">
      <ref refid="race-list.fr.human" reftype="list"/>
      <ref refid="race-list.fr.elf" reftype="list"/>
      <ref refid="race-list.fr.dwarf" reftype="list"/>
      <ref refid="race.custom.gimblatt"/>
      </list-entries>

      I don't care too much about this, but there's a certain elegance in
      being able to say that each list-entries element can contain only ref
      elements.

      > Actually, tacky as it is sometimes, I'm almost inclined to use some
      > IDREFS attributes:
      >
      > <list-entries list-id="race-list.fr">
      > <list-refs refids="race-list.fr.human race-list.fr.elf race-list.fr.dwarf"/>
      > <refs refids="race.custom.gimblatt race.custom.donalti"/>
      > </list-entries>
      >
      > but I think it wouldn't be a good idea.

      I agree.

      > > <list-entries list-type='race-list' ref-type='race'
      > > list-id='race-list.fr'>
      > > <entry refid="race-list.fr.human" type='list'/>
      > > <entry refid="race-list.fr.elf" type='list'/>
      > > <entry refid="race-list.fr.human" type='list'/>
      > > <entry refid="race.custom.foo" type='add'/>
      > > </list-entries>
      > >
      > > What I'm thinking about is making it so the processor doesn't need added
      > > intelligence to figure out what to do with the entry types. What I'm
      > > trying to avoid is, for example, an XSLT sheet generating (incorrectly)
      > > the following from this last entry:
      > >
      > > <race-list id='race-list.fr'>
      > > <race-list id='race-list.fr.human'>
      > > <race .../>
      > > ...
      > > </race-list>
      > > <race-list id="race-list.fr.elf">
      > > <race>
      > > ...
      > > </race-list>
      > > <race-list id='race-list.fr.human'>
      > > <race .../>
      > > ...
      > > </race-list>
      > > <race id='race.custom.foo'/>
      > > </race-list>
      >
      > It's actually not hard to create an XSLT script that'll correctly handle
      > it (template modes are *so* bloody useful sometimes). I'd have it run in
      > at least two passes, though -- one to denormalize the data, and a second
      > to tidy it up (remove duplicates and whatnot).

      Yeah, I found out about template modes by trial-and-error a few weeks
      back. very useful.
      But in general, you seem to have more experience with this stuff than I
      do, so I'll defer to your decisions. (and keep offering suggestions when
      they strike me.)
      P

      >
      >
      > Keith
      > --
      > Keith Davies
      > kjdavies@...
      >
      > Logan: "I don't think it's a good idea."
      > Raven: "The vote is three to one against you -- me, the crystal ball,
      > and the little voices in your head."
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > pcgen-xml-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >

      --

      Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary
      safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety.
      -- Ben Franklin

      || Peter M Kahle Jr || PGP Public Key on Keyservers ||
      || pkahle@... || http://pops.dyndns.com/~pkahle/ ||
      ##===============================##======================================##
    • Keith Davies
      ... I m trying to keep them down, but not to a minimum. When it really does describe something different (such as a reference to a list rather than an object)
      Message 2 of 13 , Feb 5, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Peter Kahle wrote on Tue Feb 5 12:02:39 2002:
        >
        > On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 11:36:26AM -0800, Keith Davies wrote:
        > > Peter Kahle wrote on Tue Feb 5 10:48:15 2002:
        >
        > *snip*
        >
        > > Note that I changed the <entry> to a simple <ref>... I'd like to keep
        > > the number of element types down, if I can, and <entry> doesn't tell
        > > me anything a <ref> doesn't.
        > >
        > > > Also, now looking at it, might it be a good idea to give a hint to
        > > > either the list-entries or the entrys themselves as to what to do with
        > > > the entries? either add or list, or some other semantic? This might
        > > > replace my version above, to look like:
        > >
        > > This I could see a benefit to, because references to lists often will
        > > be treated differently. How 'bout
        > >
        > > <list-entries list-id="race-list.fr">
        > > <list-ref refid="race-list.fr.human"/>
        > > <list-ref refid="race-list.fr.elf"/>
        > > <list-ref refid="race-list.fr.dwarf"/>
        > > <ref refid="race.custom.gimblatt"/>
        > > </list-entries>
        > >
        > > This makes it obvious to the processor that the reference is pointing
        > > to a list.
        >
        > Well, given what you said above about keeping the number of elements
        > down (did you mean attributes?) why not define an attribute, call it
        > reftype, with two possible values (at this point) "item" and "list" (I'm
        > open for suggestions on item, but it's the best I could come up with on
        > short notice.) and default it to item. That way, you get the same effect
        > as above, without the extra element, and with only a little more typing:
        >
        > <list-entries list-id="race-list.fr">
        > <ref refid="race-list.fr.human" reftype="list"/>
        > <ref refid="race-list.fr.elf" reftype="list"/>
        > <ref refid="race-list.fr.dwarf" reftype="list"/>
        > <ref refid="race.custom.gimblatt"/>
        > </list-entries>
        >
        > I don't care too much about this, but there's a certain elegance in
        > being able to say that each list-entries element can contain only ref
        > elements.

        I'm trying to keep them down, but not to a minimum. When it really
        does describe something different (such as a reference to a list rather
        than an object) I'd rather have a different element.

        For instance, at one point I was tempted to just make the classification
        objects <list>s -- regardless of what they were listing. Makes it nice,
        simple, and consistent. All good things. However, the ability to find
        lists of certain things (such as of weapons, or spells, and so on) made
        that a poor decision, so I decided not to go that way.

        I'm still trying to figure out a nice way of doing spell assignments --
        getting them into the right list is easy, but specifying the levels in
        a useful manner is annoying. The list assignment will work much like
        above, and for the same reasons (the assignment is separate from the
        reference and classification objects to reduce the impact of adding
        new reference or classification objects).

        I could do something like

        <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration" />
        <list-entries list-id="spell-list.abjuration">
        <list-ref refid="spells-list.abjuration.0" />
        <list-ref refid="spells-list.abjuration.1" />
        <list-ref refid="spells-list.abjuration.2" />
        <list-ref refid="spells-list.abjuration.3" />
        <list-ref refid="spells-list.abjuration.4" />
        <list-ref refid="spells-list.abjuration.5" />
        <list-ref refid="spells-list.abjuration.6" />
        <list-ref refid="spells-list.abjuration.7" />
        <list-ref refid="spells-list.abjuration.8" />
        <list-ref refid="spells-list.abjuration.9" />
        </list-entries>

        <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.0" level="0"/>
        <list-entries list-id="spell-list.abjuration.0">
        <ref />
        <ref />
        <ref />
        </list-entries>

        Which does have the happy effect of breaking the lists down by level as
        well... it seems disatisfying, though. I could do

        <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration" />
        <list-entries list-id="spell-list.abjuration">
        <spell-ref refid="spell.shield" level="1"/>
        <!-- ... -->
        </list-entries>

        but that would get *really* old, *really* fast, and doesn't necessarily
        gain us anything. I suppose I could do something like

        <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration">
        <level-list id="spell-list.abjuration.0" level="0" />
        <level-list id="spell-list.abjuration.1" level="1" />
        <level-list id="spell-list.abjuration.2" level="2" />
        <level-list id="spell-list.abjuration.3" level="3" />
        <level-list id="spell-list.abjuration.4" level="4" />
        <level-list id="spell-list.abjuration.5" level="5" />
        <level-list id="spell-list.abjuration.6" level="6" />
        <level-list id="spell-list.abjuration.7" level="7" />
        <level-list id="spell-list.abjuration.8" level="8" />
        <level-list id="spell-list.abjuration.9" level="9" />
        </spell-list>

        <list-entries list-id="spell-list.abjuration.1">
        <ref refid="spell.shield" />
        </list-entries>

        Which, to some extent, introduces a higher degree of structure and
        reduces the number of lists running around. The <level-list>s (or
        I could even make them <spell-list>s... there're benefits to that)
        are thereby locked within the master list, as they should be, and
        easily isolated so they don't appear when searching for top-level
        lists. It also maintains a little more consistency with the other
        <*-list> types.

        'course, the above is a little annoying for <domain>s, because each
        domain refers to a <spell-list>, and there will (usually) be only
        a single spell for each level in the domain. The SSS books add spells
        to the domain lists, though, so we'll have to support it, and this is an
        easy way of doing so... okay, never mind the complaint. It's not *that*
        much of a hardship.

        > But in general, you seem to have more experience with this stuff than I
        > do, so I'll defer to your decisions. (and keep offering suggestions when
        > they strike me.)

        Well, you've raised some good points and made me think of things that
        I hadn't yet (and perhaps wouldn't have), so it's been beneficial. If
        I seem to ignore what you suggest, don't worry -- I do read and think
        about suggestions, but I have a pretty good idea where I'm going <g>

        Thanks for the feedback.


        Keith
        --
        Keith Davies
        kjdavies@...

        Logan: "I don't think it's a good idea."
        Raven: "The vote is three to one against you -- me, the crystal ball,
        and the little voices in your head."
      • Peter Kahle
        ... Fair enough. ... Um... wouldn t matching on list[@type= weapon ] be more or less the same as matching on weapon-list? I mean, probably a little more
        Message 3 of 13 , Feb 5, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 12:40:43PM -0800, Keith Davies wrote:
          >
          > I'm trying to keep them down, but not to a minimum. When it really
          > does describe something different (such as a reference to a list rather
          > than an object) I'd rather have a different element.
          >

          Fair enough.

          > For instance, at one point I was tempted to just make the classification
          > objects <list>s -- regardless of what they were listing. Makes it nice,
          > simple, and consistent. All good things. However, the ability to find
          > lists of certain things (such as of weapons, or spells, and so on) made
          > that a poor decision, so I decided not to go that way.

          Um... wouldn't matching on list[@type='weapon'] be more or less the same
          as matching on weapon-list? I mean, probably a little more processing
          needed, but functionally pretty mucht he same, right?

          > I'm still trying to figure out a nice way of doing spell assignments --
          > getting them into the right list is easy, but specifying the levels in
          > a useful manner is annoying. The list assignment will work much like
          > above, and for the same reasons (the assignment is separate from the
          > reference and classification objects to reduce the impact of adding
          > new reference or classification objects).
          >
          > I could do something like

          Option 1

          > <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration" />
          > <list-entries list-id="spell-list.abjuration">
          > <list-ref refid="spells-list.abjuration.0" />
          > <list-ref refid="spells-list.abjuration.1" />
          > <list-ref refid="spells-list.abjuration.2" />
          > <list-ref refid="spells-list.abjuration.3" />
          > <list-ref refid="spells-list.abjuration.4" />
          > <list-ref refid="spells-list.abjuration.5" />
          > <list-ref refid="spells-list.abjuration.6" />
          > <list-ref refid="spells-list.abjuration.7" />
          > <list-ref refid="spells-list.abjuration.8" />
          > <list-ref refid="spells-list.abjuration.9" />
          > </list-entries>
          >
          > <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.0" level="0"/>
          > <list-entries list-id="spell-list.abjuration.0">
          > <ref />
          > <ref />
          > <ref />
          > </list-entries>
          >
          > Which does have the happy effect of breaking the lists down by level as
          > well... it seems disatisfying, though. I could do

          Option 2

          > <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration" />
          > <list-entries list-id="spell-list.abjuration">
          > <spell-ref refid="spell.shield" level="1"/>
          > <!-- ... -->
          > </list-entries>
          >
          > but that would get *really* old, *really* fast, and doesn't necessarily
          > gain us anything. I suppose I could do something like

          Option 3

          > <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration">
          > <level-list id="spell-list.abjuration.0" level="0" />
          > <level-list id="spell-list.abjuration.1" level="1" />
          > <level-list id="spell-list.abjuration.2" level="2" />
          > <level-list id="spell-list.abjuration.3" level="3" />
          > <level-list id="spell-list.abjuration.4" level="4" />
          > <level-list id="spell-list.abjuration.5" level="5" />
          > <level-list id="spell-list.abjuration.6" level="6" />
          > <level-list id="spell-list.abjuration.7" level="7" />
          > <level-list id="spell-list.abjuration.8" level="8" />
          > <level-list id="spell-list.abjuration.9" level="9" />
          > </spell-list>
          >
          > <list-entries list-id="spell-list.abjuration.1">
          > <ref refid="spell.shield" />
          > </list-entries>
          >
          > Which, to some extent, introduces a higher degree of structure and
          > reduces the number of lists running around. The <level-list>s (or
          > I could even make them <spell-list>s... there're benefits to that)
          > are thereby locked within the master list, as they should be, and
          > easily isolated so they don't appear when searching for top-level
          > lists. It also maintains a little more consistency with the other
          > <*-list> types.
          >
          > 'course, the above is a little annoying for <domain>s, because each
          > domain refers to a <spell-list>, and there will (usually) be only
          > a single spell for each level in the domain. The SSS books add spells
          > to the domain lists, though, so we'll have to support it, and this is an
          > easy way of doing so... okay, never mind the complaint. It's not *that*
          > much of a hardship.

          I agree with you that Option 2 is pretty ugly, but by combining it with
          Option 3, you may be able to simplify domains, and those cases where you
          would have a very few spells in a level. For example:

          <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration" />
          <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.1" />
          <list-entries list-id="spell-list.abjuration.1">
          <spell-ref refid="spell.shield" level="1"/>
          </list-entries>
          <list-entries list-id="spell-list.abjuration">
          <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.1" />
          <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.2" level="2" />
          <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.3" level="3" />
          <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.4" level="4" />
          <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.5" level="5" />
          <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.6" level="6" />
          <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.7" level="7" />
          <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.8" level="8" />
          <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.9" level="9" />
          </list-entries>

          Basically, use spell-list-ref and spell-ref and allow you to define the
          level for either. if you have a defined level for a spell in a list that
          you're re-defining the level as you make a composite list, then use the
          spell-list-ref's level instead of the spell-ref's. It's not perfect, but
          it seems like it might be the best of the available options. Then again,
          it might leave too much flexibility, at the expense of the ease of
          processing. Let me know what you think.

          > > But in general, you seem to have more experience with this stuff than I
          > > do, so I'll defer to your decisions. (and keep offering suggestions when
          > > they strike me.)
          >
          > Well, you've raised some good points and made me think of things that
          > I hadn't yet (and perhaps wouldn't have), so it's been beneficial. If
          > I seem to ignore what you suggest, don't worry -- I do read and think
          > about suggestions, but I have a pretty good idea where I'm going <g>

          Heh.

          > Thanks for the feedback.

          No problem.
          P

          > Keith
          > --
          > Keith Davies
          > kjdavies@...
          >
          > Logan: "I don't think it's a good idea."
          > Raven: "The vote is three to one against you -- me, the crystal ball,
          > and the little voices in your head."
          >
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > pcgen-xml-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >

          --

          Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary
          safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety.
          -- Ben Franklin

          || Peter M Kahle Jr || PGP Public Key on Keyservers ||
          || pkahle@... || http://pops.dyndns.com/~pkahle/ ||
          ##===============================##======================================##
        • Keith Davies
          ... It would, actually... and the classification and assignment elements are meant to be fairly simple, as their only purpose is to allow me to group things in
          Message 4 of 13 , Feb 5, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Peter Kahle wrote on Tue Feb 5 13:04:04 2002:
            >
            > On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 12:40:43PM -0800, Keith Davies wrote:
            > >
            > > I'm trying to keep them down, but not to a minimum. When it really
            > > does describe something different (such as a reference to a list rather
            > > than an object) I'd rather have a different element.
            > >
            >
            > Fair enough.
            >
            > > For instance, at one point I was tempted to just make the classification
            > > objects <list>s -- regardless of what they were listing. Makes it nice,
            > > simple, and consistent. All good things. However, the ability to find
            > > lists of certain things (such as of weapons, or spells, and so on) made
            > > that a poor decision, so I decided not to go that way.
            >
            > Um... wouldn't matching on list[@type='weapon'] be more or less the same
            > as matching on weapon-list? I mean, probably a little more processing
            > needed, but functionally pretty mucht he same, right?

            It would, actually... and the classification and assignment elements are
            meant to be fairly simple, as their only purpose is to allow me to group
            things in multiple ways. Hmm... it might be nice to have only a single
            <list> element; this could simplify many things for me.

            > > I'm still trying to figure out a nice way of doing spell assignments --
            > > getting them into the right list is easy, but specifying the levels in
            > > a useful manner is annoying. The list assignment will work much like
            > > above, and for the same reasons (the assignment is separate from the
            > > reference and classification objects to reduce the impact of adding
            > > new reference or classification objects).

            <bigsnip />

            > I agree with you that Option 2 is pretty ugly, but by combining it with
            > Option 3, you may be able to simplify domains, and those cases where you
            > would have a very few spells in a level. For example:
            >
            > <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration" />
            > <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.1" />
            > <list-entries list-id="spell-list.abjuration.1">
            > <spell-ref refid="spell.shield" level="1"/>
            > </list-entries>
            > <list-entries list-id="spell-list.abjuration">
            > <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.1" />
            > <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.2" level="2" />
            > <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.3" level="3" />
            > <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.4" level="4" />
            > <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.5" level="5" />
            > <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.6" level="6" />
            > <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.7" level="7" />
            > <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.8" level="8" />
            > <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.9" level="9" />
            > </list-entries>
            >
            > Basically, use spell-list-ref and spell-ref and allow you to define the
            > level for either. if you have a defined level for a spell in a list that
            > you're re-defining the level as you make a composite list, then use the
            > spell-list-ref's level instead of the spell-ref's. It's not perfect, but
            > it seems like it might be the best of the available options. Then again,
            > it might leave too much flexibility, at the expense of the ease of
            > processing. Let me know what you think.

            I considered allowing the level to be set in either <spell-list> or in
            <spell-ref>, but I don't like the possible ambiguity that introduces. If
            someone sets <spell-ref level="2"/> and then does <spell-list level="3"/>,
            even though the program may act consistently it could confuse the user.

            The simplest, perhaps, would be to include @level as an attribute of
            <spell-list>, then have the master <spell-list> contain references to
            the internal lists... that would be the most consistent with the other
            classifications. However, given that the level-based sublists really
            *are* sublists of the master list, and can't be used by other lists,
            I think it may be best to declare them as such. That makes it easy
            to identify the top-level <spell-lists>, but still allow assignments
            to them. At this point, I think

            <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration" name="Abjuration">
            <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.0" name="Abjuration 0" level="0" />
            <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.1" name="Abjuration 1" level="1" />
            <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.2" name="Abjuration 2" level="2" />
            <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.3" name="Abjuration 3" level="3" />
            <spell-list id="spell-list.abjuration.4" name="Abjuration 4" level="4" />
            </spell-list>

            may actually be the way to go. I'm not entirely happy about it yet,
            though.


            Keith
            --
            Keith Davies
            kjdavies@...

            Logan: "I don't think it's a good idea."
            Raven: "The vote is three to one against you -- me, the crystal ball,
            and the little voices in your head."
          • giliath01
            ... useful ... Regretably, that transformation will be rather difficult to do because there is no way to identify the type that a particular list applies to.
            Message 5 of 13 , Feb 6, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              ><weapon-list id="weapon-list.axes" name="Axes">
              > <ref refid="weapon.battleaxe"/>
              > <ref refid="weapon.handaxe"/>
              > <ref refid="weapon.greataxe"/>
              ></weapon-list>
              >
              >and so on. However, this is (theoretically) beyond the scope of this
              >project... it's up to the front-end folks to figure out what they
              >want to do -- we just have to be able to represent the data in a
              useful
              >way. I do expect to make recommendations to them, though.

              Regretably, that transformation will be rather difficult to do
              because there is no way to identify the type that a particular list
              applies to. If you have just a generic list-entries assignment,
              without inspection into the actual data that the reference ids have
              inside the gui group will not be able to determine that the list is a
              <weapon-list>. I am not sure, but I don't think the XSLT
              transformation engines can do that type of manipulation without a lot
              of work.

              Now you could add some outer wrappers to get types of information
              together like this:

              <races>
              <specifications />
              <classifications />
              <assignments />
              </races>

              This would give it a more explicit grouping and make it easier to do
              an XSLT transformation like you described above. If you don't have
              an explicit mapping that allows you to group all of the <list-
              entries> that are races together you have no way of knowing that a
              list contains races without doing inspection into what it contains.

              >I considered something like this once, for another schema. Frankly,
              >it was a pain in the ass to use. <ref> (or <entry>, above) tend to
              >be fairly obvious in context. That it is a reference to a race can
              >be inferred by the ID (<entry refid="race.elf"/>, f'rex) and context.
              >Having to use specifical <*-ref> types got to be annoying, especially
              >when they're all doing the same thing. I could see some small gain
              >in that it describes the data in higher detail, but -- at this
              point --
              >I don't think it's gains enough to be worth the trouble.

              While I understand how it is a pain in the ass to use <ref> entries,
              this approach give a more explicit definition for both the XML editor
              and more importantly for the java developer doing the data loading.
              When creating lists inside the java you want to be able to explicitly
              know that every reference object inside this list is of an
              appropriate type, but there is no typing at all on the lists.

              Both of these suggestions come back to the same problem. If we
              genericize the data too much, it is much more difficult to display a
              list of races. With the assignments you are proposing, without
              hardcoding IDs into the java, how do you identify that a particular
              list is a list of races? what is a list of classes? The java
              developer that is loading this data shouldn't have to do
              validation to make sure that lists contain appropriate groups, that
              should be taken care of in the XML definition.

              ~David
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.