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

List of tags in use with version 2.4.9

Expand Messages
  • Eric Beaudoin
    Hi everyone, Once again, I ve upload the list of tags in use with Release 2.4.9. You can find it here
    Message 1 of 14 , Mar 17, 2002
      Hi everyone,

      Once again, I've upload the list of tags in use with Release 2.4.9.

      You can find it here <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen-xml/files/List%20of%20tags/List_of_tags_v249.txt>

      New tags seen this release (most of them existed already but where not
      used before):

               FileType                   Tag
               ========                   ===
               DEITY                       PRETEMPLATE
               EQUIPMENT                  PREVARGTEQ
               EQUIPMOD                   NAMEOPT
               FEAT                        PREWEAPONPROF
               TEMPLATE                   SUBREGION
              
      Tags that were removed from the list:

               FileType                   Tag                         Reason
               ========                   ===                         ======
               CLASS                       WEAPAUTO                   Typo
               CLASS (level)              ADD:TEMPLATE               Was not a real TAG,
                                                                     must use TEMPLATE

      Best

      -----------------------------------------------------------
      √Čric "Space Monkey" Beaudoin       

      >> In space, no one can hear you sleep...
      <mailto:beaudoer@...>

    • ondemannen
      ... xml/files/List%20of%20tags/List_of_tags_v249.txt ... not ... real TAG, ... TEMPLATE Would it be possible to add a LSTTYPE and LSTBOOK to each .lst file ?
      Message 2 of 14 , Mar 18, 2002
        --- In pcgen-xml@y..., Eric Beaudoin <beaudoer@v...> wrote:
        > Hi everyone,
        >
        > Once again, I've upload the list of tags in use with Release 2.4.9.
        >
        > You can find it here <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen-
        xml/files/List%20of%20tags/List_of_tags_v249.txt>
        >
        > New tags seen this release (most of them existed already but where
        not
        > used before):
        >
        > FileType Tag
        > ======== ===
        > DEITY PRETEMPLATE
        > EQUIPMENT PREVARGTEQ
        > EQUIPMOD NAMEOPT
        > FEAT PREWEAPONPROF
        > TEMPLATE SUBREGION
        >
        > Tags that were removed from the list:
        >
        > FileType Tag Reason
        > ======== === ======
        > CLASS WEAPAUTO Typo
        > CLASS (level) ADD:TEMPLATE Was not a
        real TAG,
        > must use
        TEMPLATE

        Would it be possible to add a LSTTYPE and LSTBOOK to each .lst file ?

        LSTTYPE:spell
        LSTBOOK:phb

        Based on the mythicrpg template I really would like to see the
        acronym somewhere in the .lst file so that it would be easier to add
        text like <spell id='spell.phb.cloudkill' name='Cloudkill'/>.

        That way I wouldn't need to maintain a separate hash containing the
        values for each .lst file.

        jens:H
      • Keith Davies
        ... I think I mentioned this in a message last week, but I ve been considering dropping the book component of the ID. I find that it doesn t really add much
        Message 3 of 14 , Mar 18, 2002
          ondemannen wrote on Mon Mar 18 01:33:03 2002:
          >
          > --- In pcgen-xml@y..., Eric Beaudoin <beaudoer@v...> wrote:
          > > Hi everyone,
          > >
          > > Once again, I've upload the list of tags in use with Release 2.4.9.
          > >
          > > You can find it here <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen-
          > xml/files/List%20of%20tags/List_of_tags_v249.txt>
          > >
          > > New tags seen this release (most of them existed already but where
          > not
          > > used before):
          > >
          > > FileType Tag
          > > ======== ===
          > > DEITY PRETEMPLATE
          > > EQUIPMENT PREVARGTEQ
          > > EQUIPMOD NAMEOPT
          > > FEAT PREWEAPONPROF
          > > TEMPLATE SUBREGION
          > >
          > > Tags that were removed from the list:
          > >
          > > FileType Tag Reason
          > > ======== === ======
          > > CLASS WEAPAUTO Typo
          > > CLASS (level) ADD:TEMPLATE Was not a
          > real TAG,
          > > must use
          > TEMPLATE
          >
          > Would it be possible to add a LSTTYPE and LSTBOOK to each .lst file ?
          >
          > LSTTYPE:spell
          > LSTBOOK:phb
          >
          > Based on the mythicrpg template I really would like to see the
          > acronym somewhere in the .lst file so that it would be easier to add
          > text like <spell id='spell.phb.cloudkill' name='Cloudkill'/>.
          >
          > That way I wouldn't need to maintain a separate hash containing the
          > values for each .lst file.

          I think I mentioned this in a message last week, but I've been
          considering dropping the 'book' component of the ID. I find that
          it doesn't really add much (for me) -- the <source>s will show
          what book it's from, and it's a pain to remember what book something's
          from when I'm referring to it elsewhere. I don't really have a serious
          problem with including it, I just question its usefulness.

          Granted, I plan to have a GUI for data entry and manipulation that will
          (largely) remove the need for direct access to IDs, but while I'm still
          doing things manually I question the utility of that component of the
          ID.

          Thoughts, comments?


          Keith
          --
          Keith Davies
          kjdavies@...

          Evil High Priest: "Leave now, if you value your skins."
          Garrick: "I'm all for it."
        • Bob Galley
          ... From: Keith Davies [mailto:kjdavies@telus.net] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 11:18 AM To: pcgen-xml@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [pcgen-xml] Re: List of
          Message 4 of 14 , Mar 18, 2002
             
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Keith Davies [mailto:kjdavies@...]
            Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 11:18 AM
            To: pcgen-xml@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [pcgen-xml] Re: List of tags in use with version 2.4.9

            ondemannen wrote on Mon Mar 18 01:33:03 2002:
            >
            > --- In pcgen-xml@y..., Eric Beaudoin <beaudoer@v...> wrote:
            > > Hi everyone,
            > >
            > >
            > > New tags seen this release (most of them existed already but where not
            > > used before):
            >
            > Would it be possible to add a LSTTYPE and LSTBOOK to each .lst file ?
            >
            > LSTTYPE:spell
            > LSTBOOK:phb
            >
            > Based on the mythicrpg template I really would like to see the
            > acronym somewhere in the .lst file so that it would be easier to add
            > text like <spell id='spell.phb.cloudkill' name='Cloudkill'/>.
            >
            > That way I wouldn't need to maintain a separate hash containing the
            > values for each .lst file.

            I think I mentioned this in a message last week, but I've been
            considering dropping the 'book' component of the ID.  I find that
            it doesn't really add much (for me) -- the <source>s will show
            what book it's from, and it's a pain to remember what book something's
            from when I'm referring to it elsewhere.  I don't really have a serious
            problem with including it, I just question its usefulness.

             <BoB>  Would this tag be appropriate for a campaign book that changes the name of Player's Handbook spells so as to incorporate them into the flavor of the campaign? In my own experience, I refer to AEG's Rokugan, which changes the Cure blah Wounds series into the Path to Inner Peace (I, II, etc) series.  Therefore the hash above could be <spell id='spell.phb.cure minor wounds' name='Path to Inner Peace I'/>
            ? 
          • Darel Finkbeiner
            ... I like having the book name, personally. Unless we simply want to drop sorting them by book. But, from a user-pov, that s exactly how you want to sort
            Message 5 of 14 , Mar 18, 2002
              On Monday 18 March 2002 07:24 pm, you wrote:
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Keith Davies [mailto:kjdavies@...]
              > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 11:18 AM
              > To: pcgen-xml@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [pcgen-xml] Re: List of tags in use with version 2.4.9
              >
              > ondemannen wrote on Mon Mar 18 01:33:03 2002:
              > > --- In pcgen-xml@y..., Eric Beaudoin <beaudoer@v...> wrote:
              > > > Hi everyone,
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > New tags seen this release (most of them existed already but where
              > > > not used before):
              > >
              > > Would it be possible to add a LSTTYPE and LSTBOOK to each .lst file ?
              > >
              > > LSTTYPE:spell
              > > LSTBOOK:phb
              > >
              > > Based on the mythicrpg template I really would like to see the
              > > acronym somewhere in the .lst file so that it would be easier to add
              > > text like <spell id='spell.phb.cloudkill' name='Cloudkill'/>.
              > >
              > > That way I wouldn't need to maintain a separate hash containing the
              > > values for each .lst file.
              >
              > I think I mentioned this in a message last week, but I've been
              > considering dropping the 'book' component of the ID. I find that
              > it doesn't really add much (for me) -- the <source>s will show
              > what book it's from, and it's a pain to remember what book something's
              > from when I'm referring to it elsewhere. I don't really have a serious
              > problem with including it, I just question its usefulness.
              >
              > <BoB> Would this tag be appropriate for a campaign book that changes
              > the name of Player's Handbook spells so as to incorporate them into the
              > flavor of the campaign? In my own experience, I refer to AEG's Rokugan,
              > which changes the Cure blah Wounds series into the Path to Inner Peace (I,
              > II, etc) series. Therefore the hash above could be <spell
              > id='spell.phb.cure minor wounds' name='Path to Inner Peace I'/>?

              I like having the book name, personally. Unless we simply want to drop
              sorting them by book. But, from a user-pov, that's exactly how you want to
              sort the sources (barring 'customized' sources that only have a bit from one
              book or another, rather than the whole thing). It makes it much easier,
              then, to have the book available.... unless you want to organize them in
              the tree:

              <source id='phb'>
              blah blah
              </source>
              <source id='dmg'>
              blah blah
              </source>

              Either way, I don't see a difference in how easy/difficult it would be to
              program it. It's merely semantics, as long as the information is there.
              Besides, if we are going with the current implementation of each component in
              PCGen having a source by book and page number, I don't see how to avoid it.
            • Keith Davies
              ...
              Message 6 of 14 , Mar 18, 2002
                Darel Finkbeiner wrote on Mon Mar 18 18:22:48 2002:
                >
                > On Monday 18 March 2002 07:24 pm, you wrote:
                > > -----Original Message-----
                > > From: Keith Davies [mailto:kjdavies@...]
                > > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 11:18 AM
                > > To: pcgen-xml@yahoogroups.com
                > > Subject: Re: [pcgen-xml] Re: List of tags in use with version 2.4.9
                > >
                > > ondemannen wrote on Mon Mar 18 01:33:03 2002:
                > > > --- In pcgen-xml@y..., Eric Beaudoin <beaudoer@v...> wrote:
                > > > > Hi everyone,
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > New tags seen this release (most of them existed already but where
                > > > > not used before):
                > > >
                > > > Would it be possible to add a LSTTYPE and LSTBOOK to each .lst file ?
                > > >
                > > > LSTTYPE:spell
                > > > LSTBOOK:phb
                > > >
                > > > Based on the mythicrpg template I really would like to see the
                > > > acronym somewhere in the .lst file so that it would be easier to add
                > > > text like <spell id='spell.phb.cloudkill' name='Cloudkill'/>.
                > > >
                > > > That way I wouldn't need to maintain a separate hash containing the
                > > > values for each .lst file.
                > >
                > > I think I mentioned this in a message last week, but I've been
                > > considering dropping the 'book' component of the ID. I find that
                > > it doesn't really add much (for me) -- the <source>s will show
                > > what book it's from, and it's a pain to remember what book something's
                > > from when I'm referring to it elsewhere. I don't really have a serious
                > > problem with including it, I just question its usefulness.
                > >
                > > <BoB> Would this tag be appropriate for a campaign book that changes
                > > the name of Player's Handbook spells so as to incorporate them into the
                > > flavor of the campaign? In my own experience, I refer to AEG's Rokugan,
                > > which changes the Cure blah Wounds series into the Path to Inner Peace (I,
                > > II, etc) series. Therefore the hash above could be <spell
                > > id='spell.phb.cure minor wounds' name='Path to Inner Peace I'/>?
                >
                > I like having the book name, personally. Unless we simply want to drop
                > sorting them by book. But, from a user-pov, that's exactly how you want to
                > sort the sources (barring 'customized' sources that only have a bit from one
                > book or another, rather than the whole thing). It makes it much easier,
                > then, to have the book available.... unless you want to organize them in
                > the tree:
                >
                > <source id='phb'>
                > blah blah
                > </source>
                > <source id='dmg'>
                > blah blah
                > </source>
                >
                > Either way, I don't see a difference in how easy/difficult it would be to
                > program it. It's merely semantics, as long as the information is there.
                > Besides, if we are going with the current implementation of each component in
                > PCGen having a source by book and page number, I don't see how to avoid it.


                <publisher id="publisher.wotc" name="Wizards of the Coast" abbrev="WoTC">
                <document id="doc.wotc.phb" name="Player's Handbook" abbrev="phb" />
                <document id="doc.wotc.dmg" name="Dungeon Master's Guide" abbrev="dmg" />
                <document id="doc.wotc.mm" name="Monster Manual" abbrev="mm" />
                <document id="doc.wotc.saf" name="Sword & Fist" abbrev="S&F" />
                <document id="doc.wotc.dof" name="Defenders of the Faith" abbrev="DoF" />
                <document id="doc.wotc.sas" name="Song & Silence" abbrev="S&S" />
                </publisher>

                <feat id="feat.improved-combat-reflexes" name="Improved Combat Reflexes">
                <prereqs>
                <prefeat feat-id="feat.combat-reflexes" />
                <prebab bab="8" />
                <prereqs>
                <source doc-id="doc.wotc.saf" page="17" />
                <source doc-id="doc.wotc.sas" page="23" />
                </feat>


                The above is a (hideously contrived) example. <publisher> contains a
                number of <document>s published, and the <source> refers to them, along
                with a page number. <document>s and <source>s can also have hrefs to
                point to web pages -- for real books, they might be the URL of the page
                describing the book, for web sites the URL of the top of the document.
                The <source> href would generally be used for either the specific page
                of the item being described, or the anchor being referred to (as in
                http://mypages.com/books/rpg/my-rpg-book/feats.html#somefeat).

                The source information would still be available and could even be
                filtered (or sorted) on.


                Keith
                --
                Keith Davies
                kjdavies@...

                Evil High Priest: "Leave now, if you value your skins."
                Garrick: "I'm all for it."
              • Keith Davies
                ... would be a very uninituitive tag for this purpose; I don t think I d use it... I m... really not sure I understand your question, in context with
                Message 7 of 14 , Mar 18, 2002
                  Bob Galley wrote on Mon Mar 18 17:24:31 2002:
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Keith Davies [mailto:kjdavies@...]
                  > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 11:18 AM
                  >
                  > I think I mentioned this in a message last week, but I've been
                  > considering dropping the 'book' component of the ID. I find that
                  > it doesn't really add much (for me) -- the <source>s will show
                  > what book it's from, and it's a pain to remember what book something's
                  > from when I'm referring to it elsewhere. I don't really have a serious
                  > problem with including it, I just question its usefulness.
                  >
                  > <BoB> Would this tag be appropriate for a campaign book that changes the
                  > name of Player's Handbook spells so as to incorporate them into the flavor
                  > of the campaign? In my own experience, I refer to AEG's Rokugan, which
                  > changes the Cure blah Wounds series into the Path to Inner Peace (I, II,
                  > etc) series. Therefore the hash above could be <spell id='spell.phb.cure
                  > minor wounds' name='Path to Inner Peace I'/>?

                  <BoB> would be a very uninituitive tag for this purpose; I don't think
                  I'd use it... <g>

                  I'm... really not sure I understand your question, in context with my
                  comment that you seem to be replying to.

                  Right now, I think I'd simply have two <spell>s --

                  [data/wotc/phb/spells.xml]:

                  <spell id="spell.cure-minor-wounds" name="Cure Minor Wounds">
                  <!-- spell stuff -->
                  </spell>


                  [data/aeg/rokugan/spells.xml]:

                  <spell id="spell.path-to-inner-peace-i" name="Path to Inner Peace I">
                  <!-- spell stuff -->
                  </spell>


                  Even if they end up meaning the same thing, I don't want the definitions
                  to rely on files that might not be loaded. This is why I don't just have
                  an alias or something pointing from PtIPI to CMW.


                  Keith
                  --
                  Keith Davies
                  kjdavies@...

                  Evil High Priest: "Leave now, if you value your skins."
                  Garrick: "I'm all for it."
                • mythicrpg
                  ... would be to ... is there. ... component in ... to avoid it. ... abbrev= WoTC ... abbrev= phb / ... abbrev= dmg / ... abbrev= S&F / ...
                  Message 8 of 14 , Mar 19, 2002
                    --- In pcgen-xml@y..., Keith Davies <kjdavies@t...> wrote:
                    > Darel Finkbeiner wrote on Mon Mar 18 18:22:48 2002:

                    > > Either way, I don't see a difference in how easy/difficult it
                    would be to
                    > > program it. It's merely semantics, as long as the information
                    is there.
                    > > Besides, if we are going with the current implementation of each
                    component in
                    > > PCGen having a source by book and page number, I don't see how
                    to avoid it.
                    >
                    >
                    > <publisher id="publisher.wotc" name="Wizards of the Coast"
                    abbrev="WoTC">
                    > <document id="doc.wotc.phb" name="Player's Handbook"
                    abbrev="phb" />
                    > <document id="doc.wotc.dmg" name="Dungeon Master's Guide"
                    abbrev="dmg" />
                    > <document id="doc.wotc.mm" name="Monster Manual" abbrev="mm" />
                    > <document id="doc.wotc.saf" name="Sword & Fist"
                    abbrev="S&F" />
                    > <document id="doc.wotc.dof" name="Defenders of the Faith"
                    abbrev="DoF" />
                    > <document id="doc.wotc.sas" name="Song & Silence"
                    abbrev="S&S" />
                    > </publisher>
                    >
                    > <feat id="feat.improved-combat-reflexes" name="Improved Combat
                    Reflexes">
                    > <prereqs>
                    > <prefeat feat-id="feat.combat-reflexes" />
                    > <prebab bab="8" />
                    > <prereqs>
                    > <source doc-id="doc.wotc.saf" page="17" />
                    > <source doc-id="doc.wotc.sas" page="23" />
                    > </feat>
                    >
                    >
                    > The above is a (hideously contrived) example. <publisher>
                    contains a
                    > number of <document>s published, and the <source> refers to them,
                    along
                    > with a page number. <document>s and <source>s can also have hrefs
                    to
                    > point to web pages -- for real books, they might be the URL of the
                    page
                    > describing the book, for web sites the URL of the top of the
                    document.
                    > The <source> href would generally be used for either the specific
                    page
                    > of the item being described, or the anchor being referred to (as in
                    > http://mypages.com/books/rpg/my-rpg-book/feats.html#somefeat).
                    >
                    > The source information would still be available and could even be
                    > filtered (or sorted) on.
                    >
                    >
                    > Keith

                    Let me just say... I knew you'd say that....(in that you prefer
                    verbose over compact)
                    So let me add two observations on your suggestion above:
                    1) The Good: It allows more flexibility in the individual tags.
                    2) The Bad: It is much more expensive to implement on a wide scale.

                    Having a code ('phb') embedded in the id tag also has good and bad:
                    1) The Good: It much more compact and inexpensive to implement.
                    2) The Bad: It makes it difficult to have multiple sources for a
                    single tag. (Is this something we even want? Your example above
                    shows two sources for a tag, but is that the norm or even more than
                    rare that we would want to do that?)

                    I'm not particularly against it. But I always like to point out
                    inefficiencies when I can. If it's necessary, then so be it. If
                    there is a more compact way of doing it, I'd like it better.

                    <feat id='feat.sas-saf.improved-combat-reflexes' .....>

                    As long as each source has a unique identifier, there wouldn't be a
                    problem. The only forseeable difficulty would be page numbers.

                    Like I said, though, I'm not against breaking them out into tags, if
                    everyone sees more use for that format. Right now, I don't see
                    myself using it, so it looks like fluff... Others might see real
                    possibilities and need the extra flexibility....
                  • Keith Davies
                    ... Actually, I prefer concise (I do these things by *hand*; I want to type as little as possible), but I ll sacrifice conciseness if it means greater
                    Message 9 of 14 , Mar 19, 2002
                      mythicrpg wrote on Tue Mar 19 11:33:48 2002:
                      >
                      > Let me just say... I knew you'd say that....(in that you prefer
                      > verbose over compact)

                      Actually, I prefer concise (I do these things by *hand*; I want to type
                      as little as possible), but I'll sacrifice conciseness if it means
                      greater flexibility and better normalization -- it's *easy* to
                      denormalize, it's harder to normalized denormalized data. Given that
                      we write these things once....

                      Well, nominally, anyway.

                      > So let me add two observations on your suggestion above:
                      > 1) The Good: It allows more flexibility in the individual tags.
                      > 2) The Bad: It is much more expensive to implement on a wide scale.
                      >
                      > Having a code ('phb') embedded in the id tag also has good and bad:
                      > 1) The Good: It much more compact and inexpensive to implement.
                      > 2) The Bad: It makes it difficult to have multiple sources for a
                      > single tag. (Is this something we even want? Your example above
                      > shows two sources for a tag, but is that the norm or even more than
                      > rare that we would want to do that?)

                      It also makes it harder to get at. In XSLT,

                      <xsl:template name="spells-by-book">
                      <xsl:for-each select="//publisher/document">
                      <!-- do something with book -->
                      <xsl:variable name="bookid" select="@id" />
                      <xsl:for-each select="//spell[/source/@id=$bookid]">
                      <!-- do stuff -->
                      </xsl:for-each>
                      </xsl:for-each>
                      </xsl:template>

                      vs.

                      <xsl:template name="spells-by-book">
                      <xsl:for-each select="//publisher/document">
                      <!-- do something with book -->
                      <xsl:variable
                      name="bookabbrev"/>.</xsl:value-of select="@abbrev"/>.</xsl:variable>
                      <xsl:for-each select="//spell[contains(@id,$bookabbrev)]">
                      <!-- do stuff -->
                      </xsl:for-each>
                      </xsl:for-each>
                      </xsl:template>

                      I'd be willing to bet that the second will run a bunch slower....
                      It can also be more error-prone; where I can test the IDREF in the
                      <source> tags, I can't test the book name in the item ID. I can
                      know at 'data compile time' that I've got bad references; using the
                      book 'name' in the item ID does not allow this (or at least, not
                      without a lot of work).

                      The primary benefit to having an indicator of the book the information
                      was taken from in the ID of the object described is strictly human --
                      I can look at it and tell from that where it came from. As described
                      below, though, that can get out of step and thereby become incorrect
                      over time. Given that most people will never, ever see the IDs, I'm
                      willing to do without the potentially dangerous inconvenience.

                      It also stops being a convenience when I'm forced to remember where I
                      first saw something... "Was it in this book, or that one?" and having
                      to look it up is a much greater pain in the ass then going "okay,
                      it's a weapon, it's called /X/, so I want 'weapon.X'". I think it'll
                      be less common that we have differing descriptions of something that
                      both use the same name. Frex "Cat o' Nine Tails" may be described in
                      more than one book. However, I'd suggest that most publishers will
                      be consistent with stats within their own products (or settings, at
                      least), so we can differentiate between them based on setting rather
                      than individual book. The exception to this that would cause multiple
                      different descriptions of an object within the same setting from the
                      same publisher is when a later description supersedes the former. For
                      instance, the stats for double-sword (the stupid darth maul thing) in
                      the PHB have been overridden in the errate (IIRC) to correct the
                      weight. The same item, the same publisher, different stats... but one
                      set of stats is incorrect. We change the value and carry on.

                      > I'm not particularly against it. But I always like to point out
                      > inefficiencies when I can. If it's necessary, then so be it. If
                      > there is a more compact way of doing it, I'd like it better.
                      >
                      > <feat id='feat.sas-saf.improved-combat-reflexes' .....>
                      >
                      > As long as each source has a unique identifier, there wouldn't be a
                      > problem. The only forseeable difficulty would be page numbers.

                      The danger above is that you have to change the ID if an item is
                      described in more than one document. Ideally, IDs should *never*
                      change; to set up a policy that requires them to change is not a
                      wise thing to do, IMO.

                      Actually, this is one of the other reasons I'd like to remove the
                      book ID/name/abbreviation from ID tags -- over time, as things get
                      updated or described in more than one source, the book component
                      of the item can and will get out of step and *lie*. I'd rather have
                      something less 'informative' but always true than the other way.

                      > Like I said, though, I'm not against breaking them out into tags, if
                      > everyone sees more use for that format. Right now, I don't see
                      > myself using it, so it looks like fluff... Others might see real
                      > possibilities and need the extra flexibility....

                      Given that we can and will have multiple sources describing things
                      (there's a feat in Sword & Fist that's described in another book as
                      well, for instance -- I forget which one, but I *have* seen it),
                      <source> really should be a subelement of the item described. And,
                      if it's going to be there, having a potentially (in time) incorrect
                      string in the ID of the object being described seems unwise.


                      Keith
                      --
                      Keith Davies
                      kjdavies@...

                      Evil High Priest: "Leave now, if you value your skins."
                      Garrick: "I'm all for it."
                    • Darel Finkbeiner
                      ... Actually, I was still thinking about the target format, rather than the one we build from. It would seem, in practice, that you would only want a single
                      Message 10 of 14 , Mar 19, 2002
                        On Tuesday 19 March 2002 02:13 pm, you wrote:
                        > mythicrpg wrote on Tue Mar 19 11:33:48 2002:

                        >
                        > > I'm not particularly against it. But I always like to point out
                        > > inefficiencies when I can. If it's necessary, then so be it. If
                        > > there is a more compact way of doing it, I'd like it better.
                        > >
                        > > <feat id='feat.sas-saf.improved-combat-reflexes' .....>
                        > >
                        > > As long as each source has a unique identifier, there wouldn't be a
                        > > problem. The only forseeable difficulty would be page numbers.
                        >
                        > The danger above is that you have to change the ID if an item is
                        > described in more than one document. Ideally, IDs should *never*
                        > change; to set up a policy that requires them to change is not a
                        > wise thing to do, IMO.
                        >
                        > Actually, this is one of the other reasons I'd like to remove the
                        > book ID/name/abbreviation from ID tags -- over time, as things get
                        > updated or described in more than one source, the book component
                        > of the item can and will get out of step and *lie*. I'd rather have
                        > something less 'informative' but always true than the other way.

                        Actually, I was still thinking about the "target" format, rather than the one
                        we build from.
                        It would seem, in practice, that you would only want a single set of stats
                        for a given item, and a simple way to store that *final* information, rather
                        than a verbose mode that would be more useful when comparing and building
                        such a "target".
                        The point, I would hope, is that while making a character you are working
                        with a single, finished set of rules that have been compiled and resolved
                        from possibly multiple sources. The interface should not be concerned with
                        what those sources were, only what final source has taken precedent. E.g.
                        with two different sources of a given feat, only one source will "win out"
                        and be counted as the source, and stats, for that feat when making a
                        character.

                        >
                        > > Like I said, though, I'm not against breaking them out into tags, if
                        > > everyone sees more use for that format. Right now, I don't see
                        > > myself using it, so it looks like fluff... Others might see real
                        > > possibilities and need the extra flexibility....
                        >
                        > Given that we can and will have multiple sources describing things
                        > (there's a feat in Sword & Fist that's described in another book as
                        > well, for instance -- I forget which one, but I *have* seen it),
                        > <source> really should be a subelement of the item described. And,
                        > if it's going to be there, having a potentially (in time) incorrect
                        > string in the ID of the object being described seems unwise.
                        >
                        >
                        > Keith

                        When describing them, yes. But those descriptions will necessarily be
                        *before* a user begins making a character, when deciding which sources to
                        use. While actually building the character, the user (and the interface) is
                        unconcerned with the extraneous sources, but only with the compiled and
                        resolved rules. To my mind, it makes extraneous source tags simply
                        "fluff".....

                        OTOH, making a subelement tag allows for more information to be easily added
                        to source information (i.e. separate attributes for URL, page, person who
                        entered the tag, etc....) While I personally see no use for such *extras*,
                        they may be absolutely necessary for someone else. I wouldn't personally be
                        inconvenienced by separate subelements, but it does eat up extra space, both
                        in file format and in memory, making it a prime target for cutting... or
                        making optional.

                        At any rate, I will definitely bow to your wisdom on the matter. I have some
                        bit of commitment to actually use whatever standard comes of this project...

                        Darel
                      • Keith Davies
                        ... So what you re suggesting, then, is that the raw form of the schema would use the weapon.phb.longsword form, while the cooked would use
                        Message 11 of 14 , Mar 19, 2002
                          Darel Finkbeiner wrote on Tue Mar 19 19:29:53 2002:
                          >
                          > On Tuesday 19 March 2002 02:13 pm, you wrote:
                          > > mythicrpg wrote on Tue Mar 19 11:33:48 2002:
                          >
                          > >
                          > > > I'm not particularly against it. But I always like to point out
                          > > > inefficiencies when I can. If it's necessary, then so be it. If
                          > > > there is a more compact way of doing it, I'd like it better.
                          > > >
                          > > > <feat id='feat.sas-saf.improved-combat-reflexes' .....>
                          > > >
                          > > > As long as each source has a unique identifier, there wouldn't be a
                          > > > problem. The only forseeable difficulty would be page numbers.
                          > >
                          > > The danger above is that you have to change the ID if an item is
                          > > described in more than one document. Ideally, IDs should *never*
                          > > change; to set up a policy that requires them to change is not a
                          > > wise thing to do, IMO.
                          > >
                          > > Actually, this is one of the other reasons I'd like to remove the
                          > > book ID/name/abbreviation from ID tags -- over time, as things get
                          > > updated or described in more than one source, the book component
                          > > of the item can and will get out of step and *lie*. I'd rather have
                          > > something less 'informative' but always true than the other way.
                          >
                          > Actually, I was still thinking about the "target" format, rather than the one
                          > we build from.
                          > It would seem, in practice, that you would only want a single set of stats
                          > for a given item, and a simple way to store that *final* information, rather
                          > than a verbose mode that would be more useful when comparing and building
                          > such a "target".
                          > The point, I would hope, is that while making a character you are working
                          > with a single, finished set of rules that have been compiled and resolved
                          > from possibly multiple sources. The interface should not be concerned with
                          > what those sources were, only what final source has taken precedent. E.g.
                          > with two different sources of a given feat, only one source will "win out"
                          > and be counted as the source, and stats, for that feat when making a
                          > character.

                          So what you're suggesting, then, is that the 'raw' form of the schema
                          would use the 'weapon.phb.longsword' form, while the 'cooked' would use
                          'weapon.longsword'?

                          It's a possibility, I suppose, but I'd like to keep the IDs through the
                          entire lifetime of the object. Whether raw or cooked, 'longsword'
                          always refers to the same thing.

                          > > > Like I said, though, I'm not against breaking them out into tags, if
                          > > > everyone sees more use for that format. Right now, I don't see
                          > > > myself using it, so it looks like fluff... Others might see real
                          > > > possibilities and need the extra flexibility....
                          > >
                          > > Given that we can and will have multiple sources describing things
                          > > (there's a feat in Sword & Fist that's described in another book as
                          > > well, for instance -- I forget which one, but I *have* seen it),
                          > > <source> really should be a subelement of the item described. And,
                          > > if it's going to be there, having a potentially (in time) incorrect
                          > > string in the ID of the object being described seems unwise.
                          >
                          > When describing them, yes. But those descriptions will necessarily be
                          > *before* a user begins making a character, when deciding which sources to
                          > use. While actually building the character, the user (and the interface) is
                          > unconcerned with the extraneous sources, but only with the compiled and
                          > resolved rules. To my mind, it makes extraneous source tags simply
                          > "fluff".....

                          True, though I think that if there *were* multiple sources for the same
                          object (such as a feat that's repeated in more than one book, or a spell,
                          or a weapon) I'd want to see all the sources listed so I could refer to
                          the one I've actually got.

                          Okay, to be honest I'm speaking for someone else here... I've already
                          *got* damn near everything in the lists, I think, and have put off buying
                          the rest because I don't have an immediate need for it... but I think the
                          point still stands.

                          > OTOH, making a subelement tag allows for more information to be easily added
                          > to source information (i.e. separate attributes for URL, page, person who
                          > entered the tag, etc....) While I personally see no use for such *extras*,
                          > they may be absolutely necessary for someone else. I wouldn't personally be
                          > inconvenienced by separate subelements, but it does eat up extra space, both
                          > in file format and in memory, making it a prime target for cutting... or
                          > making optional.

                          Frankly, I don't have a lot of use for <source> either, except that it's
                          been strongly requested (I think Mynex offered to fly up here and 'explain'
                          it to me... though not in so many words...) a few times, and 'many sources!'
                          is something I've heard more than a few times also. This got hashed out a
                          couple months ago, I think.

                          If we were to have only a single source for each object, I'd be more
                          inclined to agree with you and embed the book name in the ID -- even though
                          the ID is arbitrary, it could be useful to put the book name/abbreviation
                          in the ID.

                          > At any rate, I will definitely bow to your wisdom on the matter. I have some
                          > bit of commitment to actually use whatever standard comes of this project...

                          heh, that's the fun part with standards. "Okay, we've got one, but I don't
                          like it, so I won't use it" is something I *have* run into in business.
                          Microsoft, for instance.... <g>


                          Keith
                          --
                          Keith Davies
                          kjdavies@...

                          Evil High Priest: "Leave now, if you value your skins."
                          Garrick: "I'm all for it."
                        • Mynex
                          ... it s ... out a ... No, I m pretty sure I used those words and that looks about the right amount too. ;p Seriously, though, Regardless of how you set up the
                          Message 12 of 14 , Mar 19, 2002
                            > -----Original Message-----
                            > From: Keith Davies [mailto:kjdavies@...]
                            > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 11:06 PM
                            > To: pcgen-xml@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: Re: [pcgen-xml] Re: List of tags in use with version 2.4.9
                            >
                            >
                            > Frankly, I don't have a lot of use for <source> either, except that
                            it's
                            > been strongly requested (I think Mynex offered to fly up here and
                            > 'explain'
                            > it to me... though not in so many words...) a few times, and 'many
                            > sources!'
                            > is something I've heard more than a few times also. This got hashed
                            out a
                            > couple months ago, I think.

                            No, I'm pretty sure I used those words and that looks about the right
                            amount too. ;p

                            Seriously, though, Regardless of how you set up the DTD and how the
                            internal information is handled, it is critical that the SOURCE
                            information (Whether it be the LONG or SHORT format, be in the final
                            output. Dot, Period, End of story. ;p

                            Now as to why, 2 Main reasons...1) CYA - 'nuff said. 2) Import/export
                            into PCGen/Other Program. Don't think I need to go into more detail on
                            this, but will if someone REALLY wants to know.

                            Mynex

                            - #1 Evil assistant to the PCGen Code Monkeys (Code Badgerer)
                            - PCGen Document & List File Silverback
                            - RPG Gateway - Software Section Editor
                            - RPG Reviews - d20 section Editor/Reviewer
                          • Keith Davies
                            ... The tag right now will point at the that describes the object and allow a page number. It could be presented as Wizards of the Coast
                            Message 13 of 14 , Mar 20, 2002
                              Mynex wrote on Tue Mar 19 23:51:11 2002:
                              >
                              > > -----Original Message-----
                              > > From: Keith Davies [mailto:kjdavies@...]
                              > > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 11:06 PM
                              > > To: pcgen-xml@yahoogroups.com
                              > > Subject: Re: [pcgen-xml] Re: List of tags in use with version 2.4.9
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Frankly, I don't have a lot of use for <source> either, except that
                              > it's
                              > > been strongly requested (I think Mynex offered to fly up here and
                              > > 'explain'
                              > > it to me... though not in so many words...) a few times, and 'many
                              > > sources!'
                              > > is something I've heard more than a few times also. This got hashed
                              > out a
                              > > couple months ago, I think.
                              >
                              > No, I'm pretty sure I used those words and that looks about the right
                              > amount too. ;p
                              >
                              > Seriously, though, Regardless of how you set up the DTD and how the
                              > internal information is handled, it is critical that the SOURCE
                              > information (Whether it be the LONG or SHORT format, be in the final
                              > output. Dot, Period, End of story. ;p

                              The <source> tag right now will point at the <document> that describes
                              the object and allow a page number. It could be presented as
                              'Wizards of the Coast - Player's Handbook - Page 217' or 'PHB217',
                              depending on which strings are retrieved from where.

                              And yes, you can have more than one <source> tag in an object.

                              > Now as to why, 2 Main reasons...1) CYA - 'nuff said. 2) Import/export
                              > into PCGen/Other Program. Don't think I need to go into more detail on
                              > this, but will if someone REALLY wants to know.

                              I'm cool with doing it. I don't use this information often myself, but
                              it does get used.


                              Keith
                              --
                              Keith Davies
                              kjdavies@...

                              Evil High Priest: "Leave now, if you value your skins."
                              Garrick: "I'm all for it."
                            • mythicrpg
                              ... 2.4.9 ... that ... and ... many ... hashed ... right ... the ... final ... describes ... Import/export ... detail on ... myself, but ... Yeah, that s sort
                              Message 14 of 14 , Mar 20, 2002
                                --- In pcgen-xml@y..., Keith Davies <kjdavies@t...> wrote:
                                > Mynex wrote on Tue Mar 19 23:51:11 2002:
                                > >
                                > > > -----Original Message-----
                                > > > From: Keith Davies [mailto:kjdavies@t...]
                                > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 11:06 PM
                                > > > To: pcgen-xml@y...
                                > > > Subject: Re: [pcgen-xml] Re: List of tags in use with version
                                2.4.9
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > Frankly, I don't have a lot of use for <source> either, except
                                that
                                > > it's
                                > > > been strongly requested (I think Mynex offered to fly up here
                                and
                                > > > 'explain'
                                > > > it to me... though not in so many words...) a few times, and
                                'many
                                > > > sources!'
                                > > > is something I've heard more than a few times also. This got
                                hashed
                                > > out a
                                > > > couple months ago, I think.
                                > >
                                > > No, I'm pretty sure I used those words and that looks about the
                                right
                                > > amount too. ;p
                                > >
                                > > Seriously, though, Regardless of how you set up the DTD and how
                                the
                                > > internal information is handled, it is critical that the SOURCE
                                > > information (Whether it be the LONG or SHORT format, be in the
                                final
                                > > output. Dot, Period, End of story. ;p
                                >
                                > The <source> tag right now will point at the <document> that
                                describes
                                > the object and allow a page number. It could be presented as
                                > 'Wizards of the Coast - Player's Handbook - Page 217' or 'PHB217',
                                > depending on which strings are retrieved from where.
                                >
                                > And yes, you can have more than one <source> tag in an object.
                                >
                                > > Now as to why, 2 Main reasons...1) CYA - 'nuff said. 2)
                                Import/export
                                > > into PCGen/Other Program. Don't think I need to go into more
                                detail on
                                > > this, but will if someone REALLY wants to know.
                                >
                                > I'm cool with doing it. I don't use this information often
                                myself, but
                                > it does get used.
                                >
                                >
                                > Keith

                                Yeah, that's sort of the point. If Mynex says we want to resolve
                                all possible sources inside the character (i.e. that feat can be
                                found in mutliple places, so show that in the table during character
                                generation (why? I have no idea)....) then we *must* have source
                                tags even inside of the "target".

                                In that case, there is no point to having them in the ID tags, in my
                                view.

                                So my vote goes "no book names/abbrevs in ID tags"...
                                Whatever that's worth...
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.