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

Re: [pcgen-xml] Re: Opinions?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 20 , May 30, 2003
      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 2 of 20 , Jun 12 11:05 AM
        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 3 of 20 , Jun 12 11:23 AM
          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 4 of 20 , Jun 26 8:48 PM
            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 5 of 20 , Jun 26 8:51 PM
              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 6 of 20 , Jun 27 8:21 AM
                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 7 of 20 , Jun 27 10:34 AM
                  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.