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

Re: [pcgen] Question about future xml and current custom list files

Expand Messages
  • John Rudd
    (re-sent from the main pcgen list)
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 25, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      (re-sent from the main pcgen list)

      > Subject: Re: [pcgen] Question about future xml and current custom list files
      >
      > On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 12:25:28PM -0800, John Rudd wrote:
      > > > From: Keith Davies <keith.davies@...>
      > > >
      > > > I say 'may' because things are not completely settled, and conversion
      > > > can be done a couple of different ways. One is to basically convert
      > > > exactly what we have to XML. Not a huge net gain, and many of the hacks
      > > > and implementation problems we face now will still be present. Better,
      > > > IMO, is to use a more sophisticated schema that better represents the
      > > > data... but this will require more effort to convert. At this point I'm
      > > > not entirely sure how well it will automate.
      > >
      > > Why not do both? In phases?
      > >
      > >
      > > Phase 1) simple tab'ed lst file to xml'ed lst file.
      > > Phase 2) full on xml support in PCGen with better formats and everything.
      > > Phase 3) Profit! ... er ... wrong audience.
      > >
      > >
      > > (and, another plug for contained attributes instead of attributes as
      > > arguments to tags)
    • Paul M. Lambert
      I vote for this. Why? Because it gets us over to XML first, which has some basic advantages that I like. And it gives more time for the _real_ work to be done.
      Message 2 of 2 , Feb 25, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        I vote for this.

        Why?

        Because it gets us over to XML first, which has some basic advantages that
        I like.

        And it gives more time for the _real_ work to be done. Moving the .LST
        structures to XML should be much less work and actually complete in a
        reasonable amount of time, and it'll make a converter very easy.

        Then the real work and discussion can occur on the better schema to support
        for actually redesigning the data.

        But I like getting a result sooner, even if it's not a 100% ideal world
        situation.

        --plambert

        On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, John Rudd wrote:

        >
        > (re-sent from the main pcgen list)
        >
        > > Subject: Re: [pcgen] Question about future xml and current custom list files
        > >
        > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 12:25:28PM -0800, John Rudd wrote:
        > > > > From: Keith Davies <keith.davies@...>
        > > > >
        > > > > I say 'may' because things are not completely settled, and conversion
        > > > > can be done a couple of different ways. One is to basically convert
        > > > > exactly what we have to XML. Not a huge net gain, and many of the hacks
        > > > > and implementation problems we face now will still be present. Better,
        > > > > IMO, is to use a more sophisticated schema that better represents the
        > > > > data... but this will require more effort to convert. At this point I'm
        > > > > not entirely sure how well it will automate.
        > > >
        > > > Why not do both? In phases?
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Phase 1) simple tab'ed lst file to xml'ed lst file.
        > > > Phase 2) full on xml support in PCGen with better formats and everything.
        > > > Phase 3) Profit! ... er ... wrong audience.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > (and, another plug for contained attributes instead of attributes as
        > > > arguments to tags)
        >
        >
        > 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/
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.