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

Re: [pcgen-xml] Re: Opinions?

Expand Messages
  • Keith Davies
    ... I m currently (as in in the last couple of days ) revising . I think I can reduce the 41 elements to... one. With consistent (although
    Message 1 of 20 , May 15, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 10:06:27PM +0000, tsalla2 wrote:
      > I don't know if a firm decision has been made about how data should be
      > formatted when using prerequisites, so if you are done taking
      > suggestions, sorry I was late. I'm afraid I only just found out about
      > this site yesterday. (And I must say, I'm glad it exists.)

      I'm currently (as in 'in the last couple of days') revising <prereqs>.
      I think I can reduce the 41 elements to... one. With consistent
      (although unfortunately not *dead simple*) interpretation.

      > I'm not really enamored with any of the possibilities you mentioned
      > either. Of them, I'd probably prefer number 3 or 4.
      >
      > The bastard sword is an interesting example, and I think part of the
      > confusion here comes from using <prereqs> in a different fashion than
      > in other examples I've seen. Most uses indicate whether a character
      > can *be* or *have* something, not which category something falls into
      > when the character has it. And in the case of weapons, at least,
      > there are times when it would be useful to know what category of
      > proficiency type it is generally classified as *without a particular
      > wielder*. (For a bastard sword, I'm not sure whether "Martial" or
      > "Martial, Exotic" would be more appropriate.)

      IIRC, there are other places where aspects of the entity being described
      apply only when the character meets certain prerequisites (see Holy
      Sword -- the bonus is +2, or higher if the character is a paladin).
      Thus, there are precedents for doing this.

      That said, I think it's a crappy example and a lousy way of handling
      this particular problem. What I'd like to see is the ability to define
      certain rules associated with, in this case, proficiency. So, bastard
      sword would become:

      <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
      <name>Bastard Sword</name>
      <wprof refid='wprof.bastard' />
      </equip>

      or something similar. There would be a <proficiency> element somewhere
      that defines what 'bastard' means (we could further define
      'bastard-simple', 'bastard-martial', etc. if desired). There are other
      ways this can be done.

      > multiple cases as some sort of override? An object would be complete
      > with a default, but any conditional changes could be flagged with an
      > attribute and specified in a new type of element. For example:
      >
      > <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
      > <name>Bastard Sword</name>
      > <wprof varies="1">Martial, Exotic</wprof>
      >
      > <override>
      > <case>
      > <prereqs><preequiphands eq="2"/></prereqs>
      > <include><wprof>Martial</wprof></include>
      > </case>
      > <case>
      > <prereqs><presize min="Large"/></prereqs>
      > <include><wprof>Martial</wprof></include>
      > </case>
      > <case>
      > <prereqs><prehandseq eq="1"/></prereqs>
      > <include><wprof>Exotic</wprof></include>
      > </case>
      > <otherwise>
      > <include><wprof>Unusable</wprof></include>
      > </otherwise>
      > </override>
      > </equip>
      >
      > If you just want to list the proficiency type of a bastard sword in a
      > table with a bunch of other weapons, you'd just list its default value
      > (outside the <override> section). If you wanted to determine the
      > current type for a given user, you'd see the main <wprof> had a
      > "varies" attribute set, so you would ignore it and evaluate the
      > <override> section. You could even just list all the possible cases
      > for the <override> section.
      >
      > You could use this approach for less common situations too:
      >
      > <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
      > <name varies="1">Bastard Sword</name>
      > <wprof varies="1">Martial, Exotic</wprof>
      >
      > <override>
      > <case>
      > <prereqs><preregion eq="The Rebel Kingdom"/></prereqs>
      > <include><name>Hand-and-a-Half Sword</name></include>
      > </case>
      > <case>
      > <prereqs><prerace eq="Orc"/></prereqs>
      > <include>
      > <name>Bastard Blade</name>
      > <name>Human-Hewer</name>
      > <name>Ir-Korthok</name>
      > </include>
      > </case>
      > <otherwise>
      > <include><name>Bastard Sword</name></include>
      > </otherwise>
      > </override>
      >
      > <override>
      > <case>
      > <prereqs><preequiphands eq="2"/></prereqs>
      > <include><wprof>Martial</wprof></include>
      > </case>
      > <case>
      > <prereqs><presize min="Large"/></prereqs>
      > <include><wprof>Martial</wprof></include>
      > </case>
      > <case>
      > <prereqs><prehandseq eq="1"/></prereqs>
      > <include><wprof>Exotic</wprof></include>
      > </case>
      > <otherwise>
      > <include><wprof>Unusable</wprof></include>
      > </otherwise>
      > </override>
      > </equip>
      >
      > I'm not sure this approach solves all your problems, and I'm sure it
      > can be refined. "Override" might not be the best term, and perhaps
      > "Condition" or something would be better. I thought I'd through the
      > idea out there, though. Hope it helps.

      Interesting ideas. I'd need to think about it before pursuing.


      Keith
      --
      Keith Davies
      keith.davies@...

      PCGen: <reaper/>, smartass
      "You just can't argue with a moron. It's like handling Nuclear
      waste. It's not good, it's not evil, but for Christ's sake, don't
      get any on you!!" -- Chuck, PCGen mailing list
    • Keith Davies
      ... If you want to have multiple items with the same data (more or less) you can do
      Message 2 of 20 , May 15, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sun, May 11, 2003 at 08:30:33PM +0000, dlm1065 wrote:
        > I'll be blunt I haven't a clue yet on xml but I will once I have a
        > little more time to focus on learning it. But as a person working
        > on lst I have a question. Which of the methods is going to allow for
        > modifications the easiest by other data sets 3,4, or 5(tsalla's).
        >
        > Examples
        > 1)one book calls it bastard sword, another book calls it sowrd and a
        > half, something else calls it Fooboz. I want to use the name fooboz
        > with the data from bastard sword, after all why enter the same data
        > 20 times for different names?

        If you want to have multiple items with the same data (more or less) you
        can do

        <copy:equip id="equip.fooboz" refid="equip.bastard-sword">
        <name>Foobox</name>
        </copy>

        Alternatively, make name a repeatable element; the names can be used
        interchangeably because they all point at the same thing. I'm not
        entirely happy with that, though, because applying it means you're going
        to either have only single derivations, or multiple. That is, you'll
        see lists showing

        Bastard Sword +1
        Fooboz +1

        resulting in potentially *huge* numbers of things, or you'll have only
        one of the above (which one?) meaning that not everything will have
        entries. Neither is, to me, a good solution. (Now, if they differ in
        more than name it's a moot point; both should correctly be present.)

        > 2)WOTC player's Paladin. In dragonstar he gets technical proficiency
        > and other new armor and weapon proficiencies but he also looses
        > class skills(like ride) and SA's (like Summon Special Mount).
        > Present lst cannot back out class skills(at least not last time I
        > checked). It can back out SA's with a CLEAR. To do this lst code you
        > have to make an entire new paladin with a name to indicate the book,
        > Paladin(DS).

        To be dealt with later; currently my requirement is that we can support
        *at least* as much as current LST syntax. There are places where the
        XML will exceed the capabilities of LST (specifically prereqs -- the XML
        will do much more than the program supports at the moment).

        > 3)WOTC handbook race elf. In dragonstar the elf racial abilities are
        > added to. You gt an additional +2 racial bonus on freefall checks &
        > +2 racial bonus to knowledge. Which has a lst code of this in DS
        > races.
        >
        > RACE:Elf.MOD
        > BONUS:SKILL|Freefall,Knowledge (Biology)|2|TYPE=Racial
        > TEMPLATE:DS Regions
        >
        > So how would method 3,4,5 handle the MOD or CLEAR syntax in a manner
        > that would be the simpleist to understand and code??

        <race id="race.elf" />

        <mod:race refid="race.elf">
        <add:bonus />
        <add:template />
        </mod:race>

        or something to that effect. Much is elided above simply because I
        haven't looked at it too hard recently and am not entirely certain what
        the syntax is, or because the content is either obvious or not important
        to the message (specifically for the 'original elf definition')....


        Keith
        --
        Keith Davies
        keith.davies@...

        PCGen: <reaper/>, smartass
        "You just can't argue with a moron. It's like handling Nuclear
        waste. It's not good, it's not evil, but for Christ's sake, don't
        get any on you!!" -- Chuck, PCGen mailing list
      • dlm1065
        ... manner ... what ... important ... If it looks anything close to what you have here then even a xml cluseless person like me can handle working with it
        Message 3 of 20 , May 17, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          > > RACE:Elf.MOD
          > > BONUS:SKILL|Freefall,Knowledge (Biology)|2|TYPE=Racial
          > > TEMPLATE:DS Regions
          > >
          > > So how would method 3,4,5 handle the MOD or CLEAR syntax in a
          manner
          > > that would be the simpleist to understand and code??
          >
          > <race id="race.elf" />
          >
          > <mod:race refid="race.elf">
          > <add:bonus />
          > <add:template />
          > </mod:race>
          >
          > or something to that effect. Much is elided above simply because I
          > haven't looked at it too hard recently and am not entirely certain
          what
          > the syntax is, or because the content is either obvious or not
          important
          > to the message (specifically for the 'original elf definition')....
          >
          >
          > Keith
          > --
          > Keith Davies
          > keith.davies@k...
          > > get any on you!!" -- Chuck, PCGen mailing list

          If it looks anything close to what you have here then even a xml
          cluseless person like me can handle working with it fairly easily.
          Appreciate your explanation.
        • sbwoodside
          ... I ve been doing work with schemas lately (in a project called Alexandra) and agreed, inlining is a hassle that s good to avoid. ...
          Message 4 of 20 , May 29, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In pcgen-xml@yahoogroups.com, Keith Davies <keith.davies@k...> wrote:
            > <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
            > <name>Bastard Sword</name>
            > <wprof>Martial<prereqs><preequiphands eq="2"/></prereqs></wprof>
            > <wprof>Martial<prereqs><presize min="Large"/></prereqs></wprof>
            > <wprof>Exotic<prereqs><preequiphands eq="1"/></prereqs>
            > </wprof>
            > </equip>
            >
            > I'm not entirely happy with this. The XML schema design books I've read
            > have all said that, unless it is something inherently mixed (such as
            > document text) that mixing plain character data with elements is a Bad
            > Thing -- that an element should contain either other elements, or plain
            > text, but not both. In fact, I've seen recommendations that even
            > document text should follow the same rules.

            I've been doing work with schemas lately (in a project called
            Alexandra) and agreed, inlining is a hassle that's good to avoid.

            > A fourth possibility is that we allow more than one mode.
            > Specificially, we can store the text value of an element in the element
            > body if there are no other child elements, or we store it in the 'value'
            > attribute if there are other child elements.
            >
            > <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
            > <name>Bastard Sword</name>
            > <wprof value="Martial"><prereqs><preequiphands
            eq="2"/></prereqs></wprof>
            > <wprof value="Martial"><prereqs><presize
            min="Large"/></prereqs></wprof>
            > <wprof value="Exotic"><prereqs><prehandseq eq="1"/></prereqs>
            > </wprof>
            > </equip>
            Generally from what I've read and seen, attributes should be
            restricted to data that's useful when automatically processing the XML
            by software (but not people).

            How about this:
            <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
            <name>Bastard Sword</name>
            <wprof>
            <type>Martial</type>
            <prereqs>
            <equiphands>2</equiphands>
            </prereqs>
            </wprof>
            <wprof<
            <type>Martial</type>
            <prereqs>
            <size>
            <limit>minimum</limit>
            <value>Large</value>
            </size>
            </prereqs>
            </wprof>
            <wprof>
            <type>Exotic</type>
            <prereqs>
            <handseq>1</handseq>
            </prereqs>
            </wprof>
            </equip>


            > This lets us avoid mixed-mode elements; each element contains either
            > text or child elements at any given time. It does make it harder to
            > deal with because we have to look in two places to get the information.
            > OTOH, even looking in two places is, I think, simpler than trying to
            > sort out what is data and what isn't.

            With XSLT at least it shouldn't be too hard to do that, using
            apply-templates to automatically expand all the possibilities.

            simon

            http://www.simonwoodside.com/
          • sbwoodside
            ... I ve been working with XML and schemas for about a year now so maybe I can help a bit. ... In this case with XML it s best to separate the data logic and
            Message 5 of 20 , May 29, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In pcgen-xml@yahoogroups.com, "dlm1065" <dlm1065@h...> wrote:
              > I'll be blunt I haven't a clue yet on xml but I will once I have a
              > little more time to focus on learning it.

              I've been working with XML and schemas for about a year now so maybe I
              can help a bit.

              > But as a person working
              > on lst I have a question. Which of the methods is going to allow for
              > modifications the easiest by other data sets 3,4, or 5(tsalla's).
              >
              > Examples
              > 1)one book calls it bastard sword, another book calls it sowrd and a
              > half, something else calls it Fooboz. I want to use the name fooboz
              > with the data from bastard sword, after all why enter the same data
              > 20 times for different names?

              In this case with XML it's best to separate the data logic and the
              application logic. Generally attributes are a good place to put
              application logic, that will be automatically applied, and elements
              are a good place to apply data logic. You might wind up with something
              like this...

              <weapon id="equip.bastard_sword">
              <names>
              <common_name>Bastard Sword</common_name>
              <name>
              <system>D&D</system>
              <local_name>Bastard Sword</local_name>
              </name>
              <name>
              <system>
              <system>System of Doom</system>
              <local_name>Fooboz</local_name>
              </system>
              </name>
              </names>
              </weapon>

              simon
            • Harald Meland
              [sbwoodside] ... Sorry for jumping into this discussion without having followed it from the start; I m new here. Is there anything, e.g. a current status
              Message 6 of 20 , May 30, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                [sbwoodside]

                > How about this:
                > <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
                > <name>Bastard Sword</name>
                > <wprof>
                > <type>Martial</type>
                > <prereqs>
                > <equiphands>2</equiphands>
                > </prereqs>
                > </wprof>
                > <wprof<
                > <type>Martial</type>
                > <prereqs>
                > <size>
                > <limit>minimum</limit>
                > <value>Large</value>
                > </size>
                > </prereqs>
                > </wprof>
                > <wprof>
                > <type>Exotic</type>
                > <prereqs>
                > <handseq>1</handseq>
                > </prereqs>
                > </wprof>
                > </equip>

                Sorry for jumping into this discussion without having followed it from
                the start; I'm new here. Is there anything, e.g. a "current status
                document", I should read before making too much of a fool of myself
                here?

                I guess the reason for coding the first two "Martial" entries in two
                separate elements is there is an implicit logical "OR" between each of
                the <wprof> elements; one has to either qualify for the first (and
                equip the sword in both hands) *or* for the second (i.e. the character
                has to be at least of size "Large").

                However, I don't understand the difference between the <equiphands>
                and <handseq> elements. Also, I would intuitively feel better about

                <size_minimum>

                (or maybe <size_le> or <size_lt>), than your

                <size><limit>minimum</limit>

                , as in an <equip> context, I don't understand what one would want a
                <size> element for besides imposing size limits -- and these are
                either minimum or maximum limits (possibly with the variations of
                being inclusive or exclusive).
                --
                Harald
              • S Woodside
                ... I m not sure either. I looked at the docs in the files section but it seems like it s a work still in progress. ... Ok, I didn t realize that. In that
                Message 7 of 20 , May 30, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Friday, May 30, 2003, at 05:38 AM, Harald Meland wrote:

                  > [sbwoodside]
                  >
                  >> How about this:
                  >> <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
                  >> <name>Bastard Sword</name>
                  >> <wprof>
                  >> <type>Martial</type>
                  >> <prereqs>
                  >> <equiphands>2</equiphands>
                  >> </prereqs>
                  >> </wprof>
                  >> <wprof<
                  >> <type>Martial</type>
                  >> <prereqs>
                  >> <size>
                  >> <limit>minimum</limit>
                  >> <value>Large</value>
                  >> </size>
                  >> </prereqs>
                  >> </wprof>
                  >> <wprof>
                  >> <type>Exotic</type>
                  >> <prereqs>
                  >> <handseq>1</handseq>
                  >> </prereqs>
                  >> </wprof>
                  >> </equip>
                  >
                  > Sorry for jumping into this discussion without having followed it from
                  > the start; I'm new here. Is there anything, e.g. a "current status
                  > document", I should read before making too much of a fool of myself
                  > here?

                  I'm not sure either. I looked at the docs in the files section but it
                  seems like it's a work still in progress.

                  > I guess the reason for coding the first two "Martial" entries in two
                  > separate elements is there is an implicit logical "OR" between each of
                  > the <wprof> elements; one has to either qualify for the first (and
                  > equip the sword in both hands) *or* for the second (i.e. the character
                  > has to be at least of size "Large").

                  Ok, I didn't realize that. In that case, this would be better.

                  <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
                  <name>Bastard Sword</name>
                  <requires>
                  <choose>
                  <choice>
                  <wprof>
                  <type>Martial</type>
                  <prereqs>
                  <equiphands>2</equiphands>
                  </prereqs>
                  </wprof>
                  </choice>
                  <choice>
                  <wprof>
                  <type>Martial</type>
                  <prereqs>
                  <size>
                  <limit>minimum</limit>
                  <value>Large</value>
                  </size>
                  </prereqs>
                  </wprof>
                  </choice>
                  </choose>
                  <wprof>
                  <type>Exotic</type>
                  <prereqs>
                  <handseq>1</handseq>
                  </prereqs>
                  </wprof>
                  </requires>
                  </equip>

                  After reading some of the ideas about using references, I think that's
                  a good idea. This might work, using <ref> and <define>, where a define
                  can substitute in for a ref.

                  <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
                  <name>Bastard Sword</name>
                  <requires>
                  <choose>
                  <choice>
                  <ref name="wprof_2handed"/>
                  </choice>
                  <choice>
                  <ref name="wprof_size_min_large"/>
                  </choice>
                  </choose>
                  <ref name="wprof_exotic_handseq_1"/>
                  </requires>
                  </equip>

                  <define name="wprof_2handed">
                  <wprof>
                  <type>Martial</type>
                  <prereqs>
                  <equiphands>2</equiphands>
                  </prereqs>
                  </wprof>
                  </define>
                  <define name="wprof_size_min_large">
                  <wprof>
                  <type>Martial</type>
                  <prereqs>
                  <size>
                  <limit>minimum</limit>
                  <value>Large</value>
                  </size>
                  </prereqs>
                  </wprof>
                  </define>
                  <define name="wprof_exotic_handseq_1">
                  <wprof>
                  <type>Exotic</type>
                  <prereqs>
                  <handseq>1</handseq>
                  </prereqs>
                  </wprof>
                  </define>

                  > However, I don't understand the difference between the <equiphands>
                  > and <handseq> elements. Also, I would intuitively feel better about
                  >
                  > <size_minimum>
                  >
                  > (or maybe <size_le> or <size_lt>), than your
                  >
                  > <size><limit>minimum</limit>
                  >
                  > , as in an <equip> context, I don't understand what one would want a
                  > <size> element for besides imposing size limits -- and these are
                  > either minimum or maximum limits (possibly with the variations of
                  > being inclusive or exclusive).

                  Yeah, I don't see a problem with that.

                  simon

                  > --
                  > Harald
                  >
                  > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  > ---------------------~-->
                  > Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important
                  > Questions.
                  > http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/2U_rlB/TM
                  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                  > ~->
                  >
                  > 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/
                  >
                  >

                  --
                  anti-spam: do not post this address publicly
                  www.simonwoodside.com -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel
                • CC Americas 1 Carstensen James
                  How about: Bastard Sword medium exotic
                  Message 8 of 20 , Jun 12, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    How about:

                    <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
                    <name>Bastard Sword</name>
                    <size>medium</size>
                    <case>
                    <choice>
                    <prereq>
                    <wprof>exotic</wprof>
                    </prereq>
                    <endchoice />
                    </choice>
                    <choice>
                    <prereq>
                    <wprof>martial</wprof>
                    </prereq>
                    <size>
                    <wield>large</wield>
                    </size>
                    <choice>
                    <esac>
                    </equip>

                    Basicially: If character has exotic wprof, treat as medium (which means
                    one or two handed wielding by normal rules) and stop evaluating choices
                    ("<endchoice />"). If character doesn't have exotic weap prof it checks
                    the next case, which says that is you have martial weapon prof treat as
                    large size only for wielding (which means medium size characters wield 2
                    handed, large size characters wield one handed, as per PH). Don't need
                    anything funky for non-proficient, that would be standard for any weapon
                    if you don't match.

                    Cheers,
                    Blue

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: S Woodside [mailto:sbwoodside@...]
                    Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 3:39 PM
                    To: pcgen-xml@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [pcgen-xml] Re: Opinions?



                    On Friday, May 30, 2003, at 05:38 AM, Harald Meland wrote:

                    > [sbwoodside]
                    >
                    >> How about this:
                    >> <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
                    >> <name>Bastard Sword</name>
                    >> <wprof>
                    >> <type>Martial</type>
                    >> <prereqs>
                    >> <equiphands>2</equiphands>
                    >> </prereqs>
                    >> </wprof>
                    >> <wprof<
                    >> <type>Martial</type>
                    >> <prereqs>
                    >> <size>
                    >> <limit>minimum</limit>
                    >> <value>Large</value>
                    >> </size>
                    >> </prereqs>
                    >> </wprof>
                    >> <wprof>
                    >> <type>Exotic</type>
                    >> <prereqs>
                    >> <handseq>1</handseq>
                    >> </prereqs>
                    >> </wprof>
                    >> </equip>
                    >
                    > Sorry for jumping into this discussion without having followed it from
                    > the start; I'm new here. Is there anything, e.g. a "current status
                    > document", I should read before making too much of a fool of myself
                    > here?

                    I'm not sure either. I looked at the docs in the files section but it
                    seems like it's a work still in progress.

                    > I guess the reason for coding the first two "Martial" entries in two
                    > separate elements is there is an implicit logical "OR" between each of
                    > the <wprof> elements; one has to either qualify for the first (and
                    > equip the sword in both hands) *or* for the second (i.e. the character
                    > has to be at least of size "Large").

                    Ok, I didn't realize that. In that case, this would be better.

                    <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
                    <name>Bastard Sword</name>
                    <requires>
                    <choose>
                    <choice>
                    <wprof>
                    <type>Martial</type>
                    <prereqs>
                    <equiphands>2</equiphands>
                    </prereqs>
                    </wprof>
                    </choice>
                    <choice>
                    <wprof>
                    <type>Martial</type>
                    <prereqs>
                    <size>
                    <limit>minimum</limit>
                    <value>Large</value>
                    </size>
                    </prereqs>
                    </wprof>
                    </choice>
                    </choose>
                    <wprof>
                    <type>Exotic</type>
                    <prereqs>
                    <handseq>1</handseq>
                    </prereqs>
                    </wprof>
                    </requires>
                    </equip>

                    After reading some of the ideas about using references, I think that's
                    a good idea. This might work, using <ref> and <define>, where a define
                    can substitute in for a ref.

                    <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
                    <name>Bastard Sword</name>
                    <requires>
                    <choose>
                    <choice>
                    <ref name="wprof_2handed"/>
                    </choice>
                    <choice>
                    <ref name="wprof_size_min_large"/>
                    </choice>
                    </choose>
                    <ref name="wprof_exotic_handseq_1"/>
                    </requires>
                    </equip>

                    <define name="wprof_2handed">
                    <wprof>
                    <type>Martial</type>
                    <prereqs>
                    <equiphands>2</equiphands>
                    </prereqs>
                    </wprof>
                    </define>
                    <define name="wprof_size_min_large">
                    <wprof>
                    <type>Martial</type>
                    <prereqs>
                    <size>
                    <limit>minimum</limit>
                    <value>Large</value>
                    </size>
                    </prereqs>
                    </wprof>
                    </define>
                    <define name="wprof_exotic_handseq_1">
                    <wprof>
                    <type>Exotic</type>
                    <prereqs>
                    <handseq>1</handseq>
                    </prereqs>
                    </wprof>
                    </define>

                    > However, I don't understand the difference between the <equiphands>
                    > and <handseq> elements. Also, I would intuitively feel better about
                    >
                    > <size_minimum>
                    >
                    > (or maybe <size_le> or <size_lt>), than your
                    >
                    > <size><limit>minimum</limit>
                    >
                    > , as in an <equip> context, I don't understand what one would want a
                    > <size> element for besides imposing size limits -- and these are
                    > either minimum or maximum limits (possibly with the variations of
                    > being inclusive or exclusive).

                    Yeah, I don't see a problem with that.

                    simon

                    > --
                    > Harald
                    >
                    > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                    > ---------------------~-->
                    > Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important
                    > Questions.
                    > http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/2U_rlB/TM
                    > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > ~->
                    >
                    > 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/
                    >
                    >

                    --
                    anti-spam: do not post this address publicly
                    www.simonwoodside.com -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel



                    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/
                  • S Woodside
                    On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 02:05 PM, CC Americas 1 Carstensen ... Can you explain why you think this is better? IME, it s better to use a tree-based
                    Message 9 of 20 , Jun 12, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 02:05 PM, CC Americas 1 Carstensen
                      James wrote:

                      > How about:
                      >
                      > <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
                      > <name>Bastard Sword</name>
                      > <size>medium</size>
                      > <case>
                      > <choice>
                      > <prereq>
                      > <wprof>exotic</wprof>
                      > </prereq>
                      > <endchoice />
                      > </choice>
                      > <choice>
                      > <prereq>
                      > <wprof>martial</wprof>
                      > </prereq>
                      > <size>
                      > <wield>large</wield>
                      > </size>
                      > <choice>
                      > <esac>
                      > </equip>
                      >
                      > Basicially: If character has exotic wprof, treat as medium (which
                      > means
                      > one or two handed wielding by normal rules) and stop evaluating choices
                      > ("<endchoice />").

                      Can you explain why you think this is better?

                      IME, it's better to use a tree-based structure that can be evaluated
                      recursively. XSLT, at least, is often written using recursive logic, so
                      it would add extra complexity in the code to handle that kind of logic.

                      simon

                      > If character doesn't have exotic weap prof it checks
                      > the next case, which says that is you have martial weapon prof treat as
                      > large size only for wielding (which means medium size characters wield
                      > 2
                      > handed, large size characters wield one handed, as per PH). Don't need
                      > anything funky for non-proficient, that would be standard for any
                      > weapon
                      > if you don't match.
                      >
                      > Cheers,
                      > Blue
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: S Woodside [mailto:sbwoodside@...]
                      > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 3:39 PM
                      > To: pcgen-xml@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: Re: [pcgen-xml] Re: Opinions?
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > On Friday, May 30, 2003, at 05:38 AM, Harald Meland wrote:
                      >
                      >> [sbwoodside]
                      >>
                      >>> How about this:
                      >>> <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
                      >>> <name>Bastard Sword</name>
                      >>> <wprof>
                      >>> <type>Martial</type>
                      >>> <prereqs>
                      >>> <equiphands>2</equiphands>
                      >>> </prereqs>
                      >>> </wprof>
                      >>> <wprof<
                      >>> <type>Martial</type>
                      >>> <prereqs>
                      >>> <size>
                      >>> <limit>minimum</limit>
                      >>> <value>Large</value>
                      >>> </size>
                      >>> </prereqs>
                      >>> </wprof>
                      >>> <wprof>
                      >>> <type>Exotic</type>
                      >>> <prereqs>
                      >>> <handseq>1</handseq>
                      >>> </prereqs>
                      >>> </wprof>
                      >>> </equip>
                      >>
                      >> Sorry for jumping into this discussion without having followed it from
                      >> the start; I'm new here. Is there anything, e.g. a "current status
                      >> document", I should read before making too much of a fool of myself
                      >> here?
                      >
                      > I'm not sure either. I looked at the docs in the files section but it
                      > seems like it's a work still in progress.
                      >
                      >> I guess the reason for coding the first two "Martial" entries in two
                      >> separate elements is there is an implicit logical "OR" between each of
                      >> the <wprof> elements; one has to either qualify for the first (and
                      >> equip the sword in both hands) *or* for the second (i.e. the character
                      >> has to be at least of size "Large").
                      >
                      > Ok, I didn't realize that. In that case, this would be better.
                      >
                      > <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
                      > <name>Bastard Sword</name>
                      > <requires>
                      > <choose>
                      > <choice>
                      > <wprof>
                      > <type>Martial</type>
                      > <prereqs>
                      > <equiphands>2</equiphands>
                      > </prereqs>
                      > </wprof>
                      > </choice>
                      > <choice>
                      > <wprof>
                      > <type>Martial</type>
                      > <prereqs>
                      > <size>
                      > <limit>minimum</limit>
                      > <value>Large</value>
                      > </size>
                      > </prereqs>
                      > </wprof>
                      > </choice>
                      > </choose>
                      > <wprof>
                      > <type>Exotic</type>
                      > <prereqs>
                      > <handseq>1</handseq>
                      > </prereqs>
                      > </wprof>
                      > </requires>
                      > </equip>
                      >
                      > After reading some of the ideas about using references, I think that's
                      > a good idea. This might work, using <ref> and <define>, where a define
                      > can substitute in for a ref.
                      >
                      > <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
                      > <name>Bastard Sword</name>
                      > <requires>
                      > <choose>
                      > <choice>
                      > <ref name="wprof_2handed"/>
                      > </choice>
                      > <choice>
                      > <ref name="wprof_size_min_large"/>
                      > </choice>
                      > </choose>
                      > <ref name="wprof_exotic_handseq_1"/>
                      > </requires>
                      > </equip>
                      >
                      > <define name="wprof_2handed">
                      > <wprof>
                      > <type>Martial</type>
                      > <prereqs>
                      > <equiphands>2</equiphands>
                      > </prereqs>
                      > </wprof>
                      > </define>
                      > <define name="wprof_size_min_large">
                      > <wprof>
                      > <type>Martial</type>
                      > <prereqs>
                      > <size>
                      > <limit>minimum</limit>
                      > <value>Large</value>
                      > </size>
                      > </prereqs>
                      > </wprof>
                      > </define>
                      > <define name="wprof_exotic_handseq_1">
                      > <wprof>
                      > <type>Exotic</type>
                      > <prereqs>
                      > <handseq>1</handseq>
                      > </prereqs>
                      > </wprof>
                      > </define>
                      >
                      >> However, I don't understand the difference between the <equiphands>
                      >> and <handseq> elements. Also, I would intuitively feel better about
                      >>
                      >> <size_minimum>
                      >>
                      >> (or maybe <size_le> or <size_lt>), than your
                      >>
                      >> <size><limit>minimum</limit>
                      >>
                      >> , as in an <equip> context, I don't understand what one would want a
                      >> <size> element for besides imposing size limits -- and these are
                      >> either minimum or maximum limits (possibly with the variations of
                      >> being inclusive or exclusive).
                      >
                      > Yeah, I don't see a problem with that.
                      >
                      > simon
                      >
                      >> --
                      >> Harald
                      >>
                      >> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      >> ---------------------~-->
                      >> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important
                      >> Questions.
                      >> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/2U_rlB/TM
                      >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                      >> ~->
                      >>
                      >> 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/
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                      > --
                      > anti-spam: do not post this address publicly
                      > www.simonwoodside.com -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > 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/
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      > ---------------------~-->
                      > Looking for the latest Free IT White Papers?
                      > Visit SearchNetworking.com to access over 500 white papers.
                      > Get instant access at SearchNetworking.com Today
                      > http://us.click.yahoo.com/GgVXVB/OLNGAA/xitMAA/2U_rlB/TM
                      > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                      > ~->
                      >
                      > 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/
                      >
                      >

                      --
                      anti-spam: do not post this address publicly
                      www.simonwoodside.com -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel
                    • Tir Gwaith
                      It doesn t really matter, so long as the parser knows what it does, and the code can wrap itself around it. Tir Gwaith PCGen Data SB and BoD ... From: S
                      Message 10 of 20 , Jun 26, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        It doesn't really matter, so long as the parser knows what it does, and the code can wrap itself around it.
                         
                        Tir Gwaith
                        PCGen Data SB and BoD
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:23 PM
                        Subject: Re: [pcgen-xml] Re: Opinions?


                        On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 02:05  PM, CC Americas 1 Carstensen 
                        James wrote:

                        > How about:
                        >
                        > <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
                        >   <name>Bastard Sword</name>
                        >   <size>medium</size>
                        >   <case>
                        >     <choice>
                        >       <prereq>
                        >         <wprof>exotic</wprof>
                        >       </prereq>
                        >       <endchoice />
                        >     </choice>
                        >     <choice>
                        >       <prereq>
                        >         <wprof>martial</wprof>
                        >       </prereq>
                        >       <size>
                        >          <wield>large</wield>
                        >       </size>
                        >     <choice>
                        >   <esac>
                        > </equip>
                        >
                        > Basicially:  If character has exotic wprof, treat as medium (which 
                        > means
                        > one or two handed wielding by normal rules) and stop evaluating choices
                        > ("<endchoice />").

                        Can you explain why you think this is better?

                        IME, it's better to use a tree-based structure that can be evaluated 
                        recursively. XSLT, at least, is often written using recursive logic, so 
                        it would add extra complexity in the code to handle that kind of logic.

                        simon

                        > If character doesn't have exotic weap prof it checks
                        > the next case, which says that is you have martial weapon prof treat as
                        > large size only for wielding (which means medium size characters wield 
                        > 2
                        > handed, large size characters wield one handed, as per PH).  Don't need
                        > anything funky for non-proficient, that would be standard for any 
                        > weapon
                        > if you don't match.
                        >
                        > Cheers,
                        > Blue
                        >
                        > -----Original Message-----
                        > From: S Woodside [mailto:sbwoodside@...]
                        > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 3:39 PM
                        > To: pcgen-xml@yahoogroups.com
                        > Subject: Re: [pcgen-xml] Re: Opinions?
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > On Friday, May 30, 2003, at 05:38  AM, Harald Meland wrote:
                        >
                        >> [sbwoodside]
                        >>
                        >>> How about this:
                        >>> <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
                        >>>   <name>Bastard Sword</name>
                        >>>   <wprof>
                        >>>     <type>Martial</type>
                        >>>     <prereqs>
                        >>>       <equiphands>2</equiphands>
                        >>>     </prereqs>
                        >>>   </wprof>
                        >>>   <wprof<
                        >>>     <type>Martial</type>
                        >>>     <prereqs>
                        >>>       <size>
                        >>>         <limit>minimum</limit>
                        >>>         <value>Large</value>
                        >>>       </size>
                        >>>     </prereqs>
                        >>>   </wprof>
                        >>>   <wprof>
                        >>>     <type>Exotic</type>
                        >>>     <prereqs>
                        >>>       <handseq>1</handseq>
                        >>>     </prereqs>
                        >>>   </wprof>
                        >>> </equip>
                        >>
                        >> Sorry for jumping into this discussion without having followed it from
                        >> the start; I'm new here.  Is there anything, e.g. a "current status
                        >> document", I should read before making too much of a fool of myself
                        >> here?
                        >
                        > I'm not sure either. I looked at the docs in the files section but it
                        > seems like it's a work still in progress.
                        >
                        >> I guess the reason for coding the first two "Martial" entries in two
                        >> separate elements is there is an implicit logical "OR" between each of
                        >> the <wprof> elements; one has to either qualify for the first (and
                        >> equip the sword in both hands) *or* for the second (i.e. the character
                        >> has to be at least of size "Large").
                        >
                        > Ok, I didn't realize that. In that case, this would be better.
                        >
                        > <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
                        >    <name>Bastard Sword</name>
                        >    <requires>
                        >      <choose>
                        >        <choice>
                        >          <wprof>
                        >            <type>Martial</type>
                        >            <prereqs>
                        >              <equiphands>2</equiphands>
                        >            </prereqs>
                        >          </wprof>
                        >        </choice>
                        >        <choice>
                        >          <wprof>
                        >            <type>Martial</type>
                        >            <prereqs>
                        >              <size>
                        >                <limit>minimum</limit>
                        >                <value>Large</value>
                        >              </size>
                        >            </prereqs>
                        >          </wprof>
                        >        </choice>
                        >      </choose>
                        >      <wprof>
                        >        <type>Exotic</type>
                        >        <prereqs>
                        >          <handseq>1</handseq>
                        >        </prereqs>
                        >      </wprof>
                        >    </requires>
                        > </equip>
                        >
                        > After reading some of the ideas about using references, I think that's
                        > a good idea. This might work, using <ref> and <define>, where a define
                        > can substitute in for a ref.
                        >
                        > <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
                        >    <name>Bastard Sword</name>
                        >    <requires>
                        >      <choose>
                        >        <choice>
                        >          <ref name="wprof_2handed"/>
                        >        </choice>
                        >        <choice>
                        >          <ref name="wprof_size_min_large"/>
                        >        </choice>
                        >      </choose>
                        >      <ref name="wprof_exotic_handseq_1"/>
                        >    </requires>
                        > </equip>
                        >
                        > <define name="wprof_2handed">
                        >    <wprof>
                        >      <type>Martial</type>
                        >      <prereqs>
                        >        <equiphands>2</equiphands>
                        >      </prereqs>
                        >    </wprof>
                        > </define>
                        > <define name="wprof_size_min_large">
                        >    <wprof>
                        >      <type>Martial</type>
                        >      <prereqs>
                        >        <size>
                        >          <limit>minimum</limit>
                        >          <value>Large</value>
                        >        </size>
                        >      </prereqs>
                        >    </wprof>
                        > </define>
                        > <define name="wprof_exotic_handseq_1">
                        >    <wprof>
                        >      <type>Exotic</type>
                        >      <prereqs>
                        >        <handseq>1</handseq>
                        >      </prereqs>
                        >    </wprof>
                        > </define>
                        >
                        >> However, I don't understand the difference between the <equiphands>
                        >> and <handseq> elements.  Also, I would intuitively feel better about
                        >>
                        >>   <size_minimum>
                        >>
                        >> (or maybe <size_le> or <size_lt>), than your
                        >>
                        >>   <size><limit>minimum</limit>
                        >>
                        >> , as in an <equip> context, I don't understand what one would want a
                        >> <size> element for besides imposing size limits -- and these are
                        >> either minimum or maximum limits (possibly with the variations of
                        >> being inclusive or exclusive).
                        >
                        > Yeah, I don't see a problem with that.
                        >
                        > simon
                        >
                        >> --  
                        >> Harald
                      • S Woodside
                        It matters if one data format makes for simpler, easier to write, understand, and maintain, code. simon ... ... -- anti-spam: do not post this
                        Message 11 of 20 , Jun 26, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          It matters if one data format makes for simpler, easier to write,
                          understand, and maintain, code.

                          simon

                          On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 11:48 PM, Tir Gwaith wrote:

                          > It doesn't really matter, so long as the parser knows what it does,
                          > and the code can wrap itself around it.
                          >  
                          > Tir Gwaith
                          > PCGen Data SB and BoD
                          >
                          > ----- Original Message -----
                          > From: S Woodside
                          > To: pcgen-xml@yahoogroups.com
                          > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:23 PM
                          > Subject: Re: [pcgen-xml] Re: Opinions?
                          >
                          >
                          > On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 02:05  PM, CC Americas 1 Carstensen 
                          > James wrote:
                          >
                          > > How about:
                          > >
                          > > <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
                          > >   <name>Bastard Sword</name>
                          > >   <size>medium</size>
                          > >   <case>
                          > >     <choice>
                          > >       <prereq>
                          > >         <wprof>exotic</wprof>
                          > >       </prereq>
                          > >       <endchoice />
                          > >     </choice>
                          > >     <choice>
                          > >       <prereq>
                          > >         <wprof>martial</wprof>
                          > >       </prereq>
                          > >       <size>
                          > >          <wield>large</wield>
                          > >       </size>
                          > >     <choice>
                          > >   <esac>
                          > > </equip>
                          > >
                          > > Basicially:  If character has exotic wprof, treat as medium (which 
                          > > means
                          > > one or two handed wielding by normal rules) and stop evaluating
                          > choices
                          > > ("<endchoice />").
                          >
                          > Can you explain why you think this is better?
                          >
                          > IME, it's better to use a tree-based structure that can be evaluated 
                          > recursively. XSLT, at least, is often written using recursive logic,
                          > so 
                          > it would add extra complexity in the code to handle that kind of logic.
                          >
                          > simon
                          >
                          > > If character doesn't have exotic weap prof it checks
                          > > the next case, which says that is you have martial weapon prof treat
                          > as
                          > > large size only for wielding (which means medium size characters
                          > wield 
                          > > 2
                          > > handed, large size characters wield one handed, as per PH).  Don't
                          > need
                          > > anything funky for non-proficient, that would be standard for any 
                          > > weapon
                          > > if you don't match.
                          > >
                          > > Cheers,
                          > > Blue
                          > >
                          > > -----Original Message-----
                          > > From: S Woodside [mailto:sbwoodside@...]
                          > > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 3:39 PM
                          > > To: pcgen-xml@yahoogroups.com
                          > > Subject: Re: [pcgen-xml] Re: Opinions?
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > On Friday, May 30, 2003, at 05:38  AM, Harald Meland wrote:
                          > >
                          > >> [sbwoodside]
                          > >>
                          > >>> How about this:
                          > >>> <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
                          > >>>   <name>Bastard Sword</name>
                          > >>>   <wprof>
                          > >>>     <type>Martial</type>
                          > >>>     <prereqs>
                          > >>>       <equiphands>2</equiphands>
                          > >>>     </prereqs>
                          > >>>   </wprof>
                          > >>>   <wprof<
                          > >>>     <type>Martial</type>
                          > >>>     <prereqs>
                          > >>>       <size>
                          > >>>         <limit>minimum</limit>
                          > >>>         <value>Large</value>
                          > >>>       </size>
                          > >>>     </prereqs>
                          > >>>   </wprof>
                          > >>>   <wprof>
                          > >>>     <type>Exotic</type>
                          > >>>     <prereqs>
                          > >>>       <handseq>1</handseq>
                          > >>>     </prereqs>
                          > >>>   </wprof>
                          > >>> </equip>
                          > >>
                          > >> Sorry for jumping into this discussion without having followed it
                          > from
                          > >> the start; I'm new here.  Is there anything, e.g. a "current status
                          > >> document", I should read before making too much of a fool of myself
                          > >> here?
                          > >
                          > > I'm not sure either. I looked at the docs in the files section but it
                          > > seems like it's a work still in progress.
                          > >
                          > >> I guess the reason for coding the first two "Martial" entries in two
                          > >> separate elements is there is an implicit logical "OR" between each
                          > of
                          > >> the <wprof> elements; one has to either qualify for the first (and
                          > >> equip the sword in both hands) *or* for the second (i.e. the
                          > character
                          > >> has to be at least of size "Large").
                          > >
                          > > Ok, I didn't realize that. In that case, this would be better.
                          > >
                          > > <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
                          > >    <name>Bastard Sword</name>
                          > >    <requires>
                          > >      <choose>
                          > >        <choice>
                          > >          <wprof>
                          > >            <type>Martial</type>
                          > >            <prereqs>
                          > >              <equiphands>2</equiphands>
                          > >            </prereqs>
                          > >          </wprof>
                          > >        </choice>
                          > >        <choice>
                          > >          <wprof>
                          > >            <type>Martial</type>
                          > >            <prereqs>
                          > >              <size>
                          > >                <limit>minimum</limit>
                          > >                <value>Large</value>
                          > >              </size>
                          > >            </prereqs>
                          > >          </wprof>
                          > >        </choice>
                          > >      </choose>
                          > >      <wprof>
                          > >        <type>Exotic</type>
                          > >        <prereqs>
                          > >          <handseq>1</handseq>
                          > >        </prereqs>
                          > >      </wprof>
                          > >    </requires>
                          > > </equip>
                          > >
                          > > After reading some of the ideas about using references, I think
                          > that's
                          > > a good idea. This might work, using <ref> and <define>, where a
                          > define
                          > > can substitute in for a ref.
                          > >
                          > > <equip id="equip.bastard-sword">
                          > >    <name>Bastard Sword</name>
                          > >    <requires>
                          > >      <choose>
                          > >        <choice>
                          > >          <ref name="wprof_2handed"/>
                          > >        </choice>
                          > >        <choice>
                          > >          <ref name="wprof_size_min_large"/>
                          > >        </choice>
                          > >      </choose>
                          > >      <ref name="wprof_exotic_handseq_1"/>
                          > >    </requires>
                          > > </equip>
                          > >
                          > > <define name="wprof_2handed">
                          > >    <wprof>
                          > >      <type>Martial</type>
                          > >      <prereqs>
                          > >        <equiphands>2</equiphands>
                          > >      </prereqs>
                          > >    </wprof>
                          > > </define>
                          > > <define name="wprof_size_min_large">
                          > >    <wprof>
                          > >      <type>Martial</type>
                          > >      <prereqs>
                          > >        <size>
                          > >          <limit>minimum</limit>
                          > >          <value>Large</value>
                          > >        </size>
                          > >      </prereqs>
                          > >    </wprof>
                          > > </define>
                          > > <define name="wprof_exotic_handseq_1">
                          > >    <wprof>
                          > >      <type>Exotic</type>
                          > >      <prereqs>
                          > >        <handseq>1</handseq>
                          > >      </prereqs>
                          > >    </wprof>
                          > > </define>
                          > >
                          > >> However, I don't understand the difference between the <equiphands>
                          > >> and <handseq> elements.  Also, I would intuitively feel better about
                          > >>
                          > >>   <size_minimum>
                          > >>
                          > >> (or maybe <size_le> or <size_lt>), than your
                          > >>
                          > >>   <size><limit>minimum</limit>
                          > >>
                          > >> , as in an <equip> context, I don't understand what one would want a
                          > >> <size> element for besides imposing size limits -- and these are
                          > >> either minimum or maximum limits (possibly with the variations of
                          > >> being inclusive or exclusive).
                          > >
                          > > Yeah, I don't see a problem with that.
                          > >
                          > > simon
                          > >
                          > >> --  
                          > >> Harald
                          >
                          >
                          <image.tiff>
                          >
                          >
                          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          > pcgen-xml-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

                          --
                          anti-spam: do not post this address publicly
                          www.simonwoodside.com -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel
                        • Tir Gwaith
                          I m more interested in getting a more coherent method of data storage. Most of our users have a difficult time writing data files, and the easier to
                          Message 12 of 20 , Jun 27, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I'm more interested in getting a more coherent method of data storage. Most
                            of our users have a difficult time writing data files, and the easier to
                            understand the better. We have a lot fewer code monkeys. If we are going
                            to make something easier to understand, it ought to be the data format.
                            Confusing so only 10 people can do it right so it is easier on 3 code
                            monkeys isn't of much value. Confusing code for 3 monkeys, and usable by
                            100's of users, on the otherhand, while a pain, is worth more.

                            Tir Gwaith
                            PCGen Data SB and BoD

                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: S Woodside
                            To: pcgen-xml@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 10:51 PM
                            Subject: Re: [pcgen-xml] Re: Opinions?


                            It matters if one data format makes for simpler, easier to write,
                            understand, and maintain, code.

                            simon
                          • S Woodside
                            That makes sense. simon ... -- anti-spam: do not post this address publicly www.simonwoodside.com -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel
                            Message 13 of 20 , Jun 27, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              That makes sense.

                              simon

                              On Friday, June 27, 2003, at 11:21 AM, Tir Gwaith wrote:

                              > I'm more interested in getting a more coherent method of data storage.
                              > Most
                              > of our users have a difficult time writing data files, and the easier
                              > to
                              > understand the better. We have a lot fewer code monkeys. If we are
                              > going
                              > to make something easier to understand, it ought to be the data format.
                              > Confusing so only 10 people can do it right so it is easier on 3 code
                              > monkeys isn't of much value. Confusing code for 3 monkeys, and usable
                              > by
                              > 100's of users, on the otherhand, while a pain, is worth more.
                              >
                              > Tir Gwaith
                              > PCGen Data SB and BoD
                              >
                              > ----- Original Message -----
                              > From: S Woodside
                              > To: pcgen-xml@yahoogroups.com
                              > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 10:51 PM
                              > Subject: Re: [pcgen-xml] Re: Opinions?
                              >
                              >
                              > It matters if one data format makes for simpler, easier to write,
                              > understand, and maintain, code.
                              >
                              > simon
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                              > ---------------------~-->
                              > Looking for the latest Free IT White Papers?
                              > Visit SearchNetworking.com to access over 500 white papers.
                              > Get instant access at SearchNetworking.com Today
                              > http://us.click.yahoo.com/GgVXVB/OLNGAA/xitMAA/2U_rlB/TM
                              > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                              > ~->
                              >
                              > 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/
                              >
                              >

                              --
                              anti-spam: do not post this address publicly
                              www.simonwoodside.com -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.