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

a thought in responce to Re: Opinions? from a data perspective

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.