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

Re: Why XML?

Expand Messages
  • mauriceonmaplate
    ... first ... I was seeing two programs...a PCGen and a PCGenFile Editor...But I guess the Editor would become the target of the problems we currently have
    Message 1 of 47 , Aug 14 2:47 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In pcgen-xml@y..., "aspxpert" <aspxpert@y...> wrote:
      > 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
      > comment.

      I was seeing two programs...a PCGen and a PCGenFile Editor...But I
      guess the Editor would become the target of the problems we currently
      have with PCGen and compliance.

      One advantage would be that the file generator could generate LST
      files or the new format, but we'd need the "new" PCGen to work with
      the new files. Harks back to the intermediate thread.

      >
      > 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".
      >

      Speed may be an additional issue. Not that it is nescessarily a
      problem for XML. I'm not sure XML is 'easy to use' or 'widely
      known'. The whole XML project relies on a good data scheme, which I
      understand a team is working on?

      > 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*?

      No reason to do that, compiled Objects would do the job. Other
      simple formats are also available. Actually all require much
      definition/design, if the final product is a novel, XML simply tells
      us it has chapters, paragraphs, sentences and english words. Most of
      the work is yet to be done.

      XML seems to me to be a compromise between easily edited data files
      and computer generated files that are definatly NOT user editable.

      Compromises may be good or bad.

      When the 'data scheme' is designed we'll find out a lot more on
      whether XML is possible...I just hope the scheme is not squeezed to
      fit XML...
    • 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 1:17 PM
      • 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,
        though.

        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
        techniques).

        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
        --
        Keith Davies
        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.