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

Re: Why XML?

Expand Messages
  • aspxpert
    If you allow scripting into the equation, you run the risk of it becoming a crutch . And thus allow it to become dangerous. This should be done only with
    Message 1 of 47 , Aug 14, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      If you allow scripting into the equation, you run the risk of it
      becoming a "crutch". And thus allow it to become dangerous. This
      should be done only with MUCH forethought and planning.

      Yes, Java can load compiled objects at runtime too. But see my first

      Is XML the *best* solution to the problem? Depends on how you
      define "best".

      If "best" is easy to use, inexpensive to implement, widely known and
      accepted, and technically able to accomplish the task, then the
      answer is probably "yes".

      If "best" is the most "native" format for the data being represented,
      well, I suppose the code gods could create their own data definition
      language specifically for PCGen... but... *why*?
    • Keith Davies
      ... Ahhhh... now that I ve exhumed myself from under this weekend s email and can reply to things (supposedly) intelligently.... This is my intent. It ll be
      Message 47 of 47 , Aug 26, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 07:55:34PM +0000, merton_monk wrote:
        > We're going to steer clear of descriptions - even paraphrased ones
        > for now. At some point I hope I'm able to sit down with a sofrware
        > lawyer and figure out to what extent we (and by that I mean me!) are
        > liable for users who enter in verbatim text. I don't want to get
        > into a legal quibbling discussion here - I've been in them too much
        > lately! So consider it a Benevolent Dictator Directive (hey - I get
        > to issue those from time to time!) that we don't include any
        > descriptions at all. However, we can plan/design for them assuming
        > that we can use that at some point. I think that most publishers are
        > fine if we include summary-type descriptions, but it's a touchy
        > issue. For now we'll go the safe route.

        Ahhhh... now that I've exhumed myself from under this weekend's email
        and can reply to things (supposedly) intelligently....

        This is my intent. It'll be designed in, but (so far as I know) will
        not be used in the official files. I expect the 'brief descriptions'
        -- the one-liners like "creates a big, hot ball of fire" or "lets you
        move through combat more safely" -- will still be present in the data,

        To a certain degree I'm overdesigning the schema. I can see some things
        that make sense to include even if we won't be using them right away.

        Case in point, the rules currently call for cleric spells, and domain
        spells. I plan to support a cleric list, lists for domains, and a
        specific list for each god. Thus, if all clerics of a god have access
        to a particular set of spells, but not all other clerics do, they can be
        granted 'directly' by the god. They may or may not also be domain
        spells. Incidentally, I'm also planning to support multiple pantheons.
        The dwarven clerics, for example, will have different spells available
        to them than clerics of the Imperial gods, which will be different from
        the spells of the clerics of the jungle spirits. Or not.

        Another example is skills. It will be possible to define subskills for
        pretty much any skill, much like Perform. For instance, my
        Knowledge(Religion) has a whole bunch of subcategories such as 'dwarven
        pantheon', 'Naurond' (specific dwarven god), 'Vudun' (another pantheon),
        etc.; as ranks are gained these subskills may be selected. Similarly
        with Craft -- the specific skill taken may have subskills
        (Craft(Weaponsmith) has subskills based on the different ways of
        creating weapons, or different categories... 4 ranks gets a decent
        grounding in the common weapons of the culture, but exotic weapons
        would require more ranks and masterwork items might require special

        Another thing is prerequisites on a larger range of things, including:
        - feats (currently done)
        - classes (currently done)
        - class levels ('in order to reach 8th level, /x/ must be done', or
        'must have /y/ feat in order to reach 5th level')
        - skills (must have /x/ feat to learn this skill... which I've seen in
        books IIRC)
        - race (why not? Earlier editions of D&D used to have this)

        Overbuilt, perhaps, but at least it won't have to be hacked in later....

        Keith Davies

        PCGen: <reaper/>, smartass
        "While information might or might not want to be free, it definitely
        doesn't want to live under a DRM" -- Jonas, on PCGen
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.