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

Re: Opinions?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 20 , May 29 1:47 PM
    • 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 2 of 20 , May 29 1:57 PM
      • 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 3 of 20 , May 30 2:38 AM
        • 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 4 of 20 , May 30 12:39 PM
          • 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.