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

Re: [pcgen-xml] Re: Opinions?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.