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

Re: [pcgen-xml] Question regarding

Expand Messages
  • Frugal
    ... So the Entity producer takes XML on disk and creates some intermediary data format. The EntityConsumer then takes that
    Message 1 of 13 , Nov 7, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      <quote who="Keith Davies">
      > On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 03:55:36PM +0000, Frugal wrote:
      > Everything in the game is represented by an Entity or a subclass
      > thereof. There will be an interface 'EntityProducer' that does the
      > obvious. There will also be an interface 'EntityConsumer' that receives
      > the Entity objects produced by EntityProducer and does something with
      > them. So, what I picture is something like:
      >
      > public class XMLLoader implements EntityProducer {}
      > public class EntityLSTConsumer implements EntityConsumer {}
      >
      > On loading the XML file, the engine will take the Entity objects
      > produced by the XMLLoader and pass them to an EntityLSTConsumer. This
      > object will then convert the Entity to a PObject-based object and store
      > it as needed.

      So the Entity producer takes XML on disk and creates some intermediary
      data format.

      The EntityConsumer then takes that intermediary format and converts it to
      a POBject.

      So for the simplest case of XMLLoader the Entity could just be a JDOM
      Element for teh skill / feat / class etc?

      > In the case of a <bonus>, it can be attached to one of the <skill>s
      > related to the bonus. Or cached until one of the <skill>s is loaded, if
      > necessary.

      Looking at the code it may be straightforward to have "floating bonuses"
      that are not attached to anything.

      > The second isn't my requirement, it's Tir's. Personally I'd like to
      > nail down the order of child elements, it'd make things a fair whack
      > simpler.

      Personally I could not care what order the elements are in so long as we
      can validate the file. If we use somethign like JDOM we can deal with the
      child elements however we like regardless of order on disk.

      >> <feat>
      >> <name>Foo</name>
      >> <bonuses>
      >> <bonus>SKILL|Listen,Spot|2</bonus>
      >> <bonus>SKILL|Tumble|3</bonus>
      >> </bonuses>
      >> </feat>
      >
      > Which I kind of prefer anyway for many things -- keeps things tidier.

      So do I, I like all "list elements" to be in a "list parent".

      > <pre>
      > <pre var='hands' min='2' max='2' /> <!-- alt. eq='2' -->
      > <pre stat='dex' min='15' />
      > </pre>
      >
      > Ah, I see what you're using 'eq' for. In this scheme it'd be done
      > something like:

      I assumed that eq was for the 'count' when you had more than one option.

      > <pre>
      > <pre var='hands' eq='2' />
      > <pre min='1'>
      > <pre stat='dex' min='15' />
      > <pre stat='str' min='17' />
      > </pre>
      > </pre>
      >
      > "must have two hands and either Dex 15+ or Str 17+". By default a <pre>
      > with children must have all children pass in order to be met.

      So you want <pre> to have an attribute for each possible prereq? What are
      the differences in how the other attributes are used for each 'stat',
      'var' etc.

      How do you validate that you have exactly one of 'var', 'stat' etc in the
      element ?

      Would it not be easier from a parsing and validation point of view to have
      a 'type' attribute and a 'key' attribute.

      <pre>
      <pre kind='var' key='hands' eq='2' />
      <pre min='1'>
      <pre kind='stat' key='dex' min='15' />
      <pre kind='stat' key='str' min='17' />
      </pre>
      </pre>

      Then you can define 'type' to be a xs:NMTOKEN and emumerate all of the
      possible values.

      Can I suggest the use of <prereq> rather than <pre> so that people do not
      get it confused with the html tag. It is a little petty thing I know, but
      it is the sort of thing that will cause problems for some people.

      >> <desc>See Text</desc>
      >> <bonuses>
      >> <bonus>COMBAT|TOHIT-SECONDARY|4</bonus>
      >> </bonuses>
      >> </feat>

      So we will want to do something similar to <pre> for <bonus>

      <bonuses>
      <bonus kind="combat" key="tohit-secondary" value="4"/>
      <bonus kind="combat" key="ac" value="4"
      bonustype='NaturalArmor' replace="true" />
      </bonuses>

      Thanks to Jamie's bonus code rewrite there is a nice list of all of the
      available top level bonuses and their parameters ;O)

      > True. But it then complicates *my* software, where I expect to be able
      > to do something like:

      Just out of interest what is your software ?

      >> It will make the schema a lot simple, parseing a lot simpler and
      >> getting the LST monkies to buy in a lot simpler.
      >
      > There'd be a lower curve for those already experienced with LST prereqs.
      > I think actually encoding the information in the elements might be
      > simpler in the end, though.

      I guess it is a balancing act between doing somthing decent and doing
      something that will keep Tir happy.

      >> If we want to move to a better syntax later we still can. I am just
      >> trying to cut down the amount of work needed at this point.
      >
      > Understandable. My main disagreements here are that I don't -- never
      > did -- want to do half a job, which the 'minimal conversion' would have
      > been, and that such a scheme wouldn't meet *my* data needs.

      I guess I have been in a corporate environment too long. The only times I
      ever get to make a decent job of something is when I do not let management
      know what I am doing before I do it ;O)

      --
      regards,
      Frugal
      -OS Chimp
    • Keith Davies
      ... An EntityProducer creates an Entity. That s all you know. From disk, from a database, from a form where a user is doing data entry, whatever. It s just a
      Message 2 of 13 , Nov 7, 2003
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 09:11:33AM +0000, Frugal wrote:
        >
        > <quote who="Keith Davies">
        > > On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 03:55:36PM +0000, Frugal wrote: Everything
        > > in the game is represented by an Entity or a subclass thereof.
        > > There will be an interface 'EntityProducer' that does the obvious.
        > > There will also be an interface 'EntityConsumer' that receives the
        > > Entity objects produced by EntityProducer and does something with
        > > them. So, what I picture is something like:
        > >
        > > public class XMLLoader implements EntityProducer {} public class
        > > EntityLSTConsumer implements EntityConsumer {}
        > >
        > > On loading the XML file, the engine will take the Entity objects
        > > produced by the XMLLoader and pass them to an EntityLSTConsumer.
        > > This object will then convert the Entity to a PObject-based object
        > > and store it as needed.
        >
        > So the Entity producer takes XML on disk and creates some intermediary
        > data format.

        An EntityProducer creates an Entity. That's all you know. From disk,
        from a database, from a form where a user is doing data entry, whatever.
        It's just a source of data.

        > The EntityConsumer then takes that intermediary format and converts it to
        > a POBject.

        An EntityConsumer may be created that will take the intermediary format
        and convert it to PObject, yes.

        In my analysis I created a class called 'AtomicProducer' (implements
        Producer and Consumer). It was given a Producer and a Consumer. It
        collected Entity objects created by the Producer and cached them until
        the Producer said 'no more', then sprayed them all at the Consumer. By
        waiting until then, the AtomicProducer caused the happy situation of
        'nothing loaded until all loaded'; a syntax error in the file would not
        cause the load to leave incomplete data in the system. *Incorrect* data
        it could do nothing about, but a syntax error wouldn't cause a problem.

        It took 60 lines of code. And would work with any Producer and
        Consumer.

        Other uses for this mechanism:

        A Producer to pull data out of LST files (obviously).
        A Producer to pull data out of internal data store.
        A Producer that picks things up off a network connection.
        A Consumer to dump to file (XML, LST, HTML flavors).
        A Consumer to write to a database.
        A Consumer that pushes things through a network connection.

        There are others, as well.

        > So for the simplest case of XMLLoader the Entity could just be a JDOM
        > Element for teh skill / feat / class etc?

        I'd rather not, because I see this mechanism working for different data
        sources. I'd rather create an internal class and use that.

        > > In the case of a <bonus>, it can be attached to one of the <skill>s
        > > related to the bonus. Or cached until one of the <skill>s is loaded, if
        > > necessary.
        >
        > Looking at the code it may be straightforward to have "floating bonuses"
        > that are not attached to anything.

        That's good to hear.

        > > The second isn't my requirement, it's Tir's. Personally I'd like to
        > > nail down the order of child elements, it'd make things a fair whack
        > > simpler.
        >
        > Personally I could not care what order the elements are in so long as we
        > can validate the file. If we use somethign like JDOM we can deal with the
        > child elements however we like regardless of order on disk.

        It'd be nice to use existing tools for it. However, I was planning to
        use a metafile describing the structure of the various Entitys and how
        the elements map to them. Where things are '0..1', I'm told they
        currently just overwrite an existing value if a second one is found.
        Where things are 'm..n' they added together. A simple validation
        (beyond syntax in the data itself) would be to just run through and
        counts thing when done.

        > > <pre>
        > > <pre var='hands' min='2' max='2' /> <!-- alt. eq='2' -->
        > > <pre stat='dex' min='15' />
        > > </pre>
        > >
        > > Ah, I see what you're using 'eq' for. In this scheme it'd be done
        > > something like:
        >
        > I assumed that eq was for the 'count' when you had more than one option.

        Shorthand for 'min="val" max="val"'. I know it's redundant (which I
        usually don't like) but in this case I think it'd be useful enough to
        warrant it.

        Actually, how often *do* exact values come up in prereqs? I could be
        wrong.

        > > <pre>
        > > <pre var='hands' eq='2' />
        > > <pre min='1'>
        > > <pre stat='dex' min='15' />
        > > <pre stat='str' min='17' />
        > > </pre>
        > > </pre>
        > >
        > > "must have two hands and either Dex 15+ or Str 17+". By default a
        > > <pre> with children must have all children pass in order to be met.
        >
        > So you want <pre> to have an attribute for each possible prereq? What
        > are the differences in how the other attributes are used for each
        > 'stat', 'var' etc.

        In the Entity I was creating there wasn't one. What you'd *actually*
        see would be

        <pre var='stat.dex' />

        or

        <pre set='feats' contains='feat.power_attack' />

        > How do you validate that you have exactly one of 'var', 'stat' etc in
        > the element ?

        Throw an error if you find more than one? Which means moving this
        aspect of validation up. I'd rather have the library do it, of course,
        but it might not be too bad.

        > Would it not be easier from a parsing and validation point of view to have
        > a 'type' attribute and a 'key' attribute.
        >
        > <pre>
        > <pre kind='var' key='hands' eq='2' />
        > <pre min='1'>
        > <pre kind='stat' key='dex' min='15' />
        > <pre kind='stat' key='str' min='17' />
        > </pre>
        > </pre>
        >
        > Then you can define 'type' to be a xs:NMTOKEN and emumerate all of the
        > possible values.

        Kind, you mean? Dammit, I wish class weren't a domain term. The
        convention is to use 'class' to indicate what sort of thing an element
        actually is (like in the <description> below).

        > Can I suggest the use of <prereq> rather than <pre> so that people do not
        > get it confused with the html tag. It is a little petty thing I know, but
        > it is the sort of thing that will cause problems for some people.

        Sure. I tend to use <pre> because it's shorter and the contents can run
        long... three characters can make a difference <g>.

        > >> <desc>See Text</desc>
        > >> <bonuses>
        > >> <bonus>COMBAT|TOHIT-SECONDARY|4</bonus>
        > >> </bonuses>
        > >> </feat>
        >
        > So we will want to do something similar to <pre> for <bonus>

        Probably. Why not keep things consistent?

        > <bonuses>
        > <bonus kind="combat" key="tohit-secondary" value="4"/>
        > <bonus kind="combat" key="ac" value="4"
        > bonustype='NaturalArmor' replace="true" />
        > </bonuses>
        >
        > Thanks to Jamie's bonus code rewrite there is a nice list of all of the
        > available top level bonuses and their parameters ;O)
        >
        > > True. But it then complicates *my* software, where I expect to be able
        > > to do something like:
        >
        > Just out of interest what is your software ?

        Sort of similar, actually, but a little more... industrial. Not so
        pretty, I can just give it a stack of instructions and let it run.
        Also, my campaign rules, last I looked, would give PCGen fits.

        > >> It will make the schema a lot simple, parseing a lot simpler and
        > >> getting the LST monkies to buy in a lot simpler.
        > >
        > > There'd be a lower curve for those already experienced with LST
        > > prereqs. I think actually encoding the information in the elements
        > > might be simpler in the end, though.
        >
        > I guess it is a balancing act between doing somthing decent and doing
        > something that will keep Tir happy.

        Can be. OTOH, I'm looking for something that meets my needs. I can be
        flexible and make it useable by PCGen, which is why I started pursuing
        this (plus, if PCGen uses the same format, I can pillage the data <g>).

        I've decided to do it *right*. I'll let Tir worry about the rest; I'm
        not going to build to a shitty design to satisfy someone who doesn't
        understand the technology I'm working with.

        > >> If we want to move to a better syntax later we still can. I am just
        > >> trying to cut down the amount of work needed at this point.
        > >
        > > Understandable. My main disagreements here are that I don't --
        > > never did -- want to do half a job, which the 'minimal conversion'
        > > would have been, and that such a scheme wouldn't meet *my* data
        > > needs.
        >
        > I guess I have been in a corporate environment too long. The only
        > times I ever get to make a decent job of something is when I do not
        > let management know what I am doing before I do it ;O)

        LOL. I'm a contractor working for Government. I know *exactly* what
        you mean.

        "We want to you to update this program and make these changes."
        "Nasty stuff. It should be rebuilt from the ground up."
        "No, you don't have time for that."
        "I'm pretty sure I do, and it'll fix these other things too."
        "Just make the minimal changes needed."
        "Okay. I'll do the least I have to to make it work the way you want."

        <one week later>

        "How's it going?"
        "Well I had to modify the main menu to include the things you wanted, so
        while I was there I rearranged things a bit so they made more sense.
        The code's unstable right now because the changes are pretty deep, so I
        can't show you how it works yet."
        "Okay, keep me posted."

        <another week later>

        "Okay, I've got these modules working again the way you want. Except
        this one; the change in platform meant I had to rework *this* entirely."
        "Looks pretty good. It seems faster than before."
        "Yeah, I tidied up a bit, found some weird behavior possibly caused by
        the previous platform, probably caused by the meatheads who originally
        wrote it."
        "Heh, I remember them. Carry on."

        <two weeks after that>
        "Wow, you're done faster than expected. Apart from a couple of minor
        bugs it works *great*. It looks better and makes more sense."
        "Thanks."

        I ended up doing a full reimplementation in half the time they'd alloted
        for me to do 'make modifications'. I didn't, of course, tell them *how*
        I did it until afterward, when it was too late.

        Of course, if you try this and get it *wrong*, Bad Things Happen.


        Keith
        --
        Keith Davies "Your ability to bang your head against
        keith.davies@... reality in the hope that reality will
        crack first is impressive, but futile"
        -- Geoffrey Brent, rec.games.frp.dnd
      • Frugal
        ... So there will be a separate Entity subclass for each Object type we wish to use. Will there be an Entity for things like
        Message 3 of 13 , Nov 13, 2003
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          <quote who="Keith Davies">
          > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 09:11:33AM +0000, Frugal wrote:
          >> So the Entity producer takes XML on disk and creates some intermediary
          >> data format.
          >
          > An EntityProducer creates an Entity. That's all you know. From disk,
          > from a database, from a form where a user is doing data entry, whatever.
          > It's just a source of data.

          So there will be a separate Entity subclass for each Object type we wish
          to use.

          Will there be an Entity for things like <prereq> and <bonus> or are you
          envisioning an Entity type for each top level type?

          > In my analysis I created a class called 'AtomicProducer' (implements
          > Producer and Consumer). It was given a Producer and a Consumer. It
          > collected Entity objects created by the Producer and cached them until
          > the Producer said 'no more', then sprayed them all at the Consumer. By
          > waiting until then, the AtomicProducer caused the happy situation of
          > 'nothing loaded until all loaded'; a syntax error in the file would not
          > cause the load to leave incomplete data in the system. *Incorrect* data
          > it could do nothing about, but a syntax error wouldn't cause a problem.
          >
          > It took 60 lines of code. And would work with any Producer and
          > Consumer.

          Do you have any of this code available? (rather than me rewrite it all
          from scratch).

          > Other uses for this mechanism:
          >
          > A Producer to pull data out of LST files (obviously).
          > A Producer to pull data out of internal data store.
          > A Producer that picks things up off a network connection.
          > A Consumer to dump to file (XML, LST, HTML flavors).
          > A Consumer to write to a database.
          > A Consumer that pushes things through a network connection.

          So we could have an LST Producer and an XML Consumer to convert all of the
          data.

          What I would like to do is rewrite the current persistance routines to use
          a LST Producer and and PObject Consumer, then write an XML Consumer and an
          XML Producer.

          --
          regards,
          Frugal
          -OS Chimp
        • Keith Davies
          ... There *could* be. I originally had in mind a more generic data type that could just hold stuff , and a meta file that describes how the various elements
          Message 4 of 13 , Nov 13, 2003
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 09:43:54AM +0000, Frugal wrote:
            > <quote who="Keith Davies">
            > > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 09:11:33AM +0000, Frugal wrote:
            > >> So the Entity producer takes XML on disk and creates some intermediary
            > >> data format.
            > >
            > > An EntityProducer creates an Entity. That's all you know. From disk,
            > > from a database, from a form where a user is doing data entry, whatever.
            > > It's just a source of data.
            >
            > So there will be a separate Entity subclass for each Object type we
            > wish to use.

            There *could* be. I originally had in mind a more generic data type
            that could just 'hold stuff', and a meta file that describes how the
            various elements map to things. I decided that it was going to result
            in big, fat data objects that I didn't want to deal with at that time...
            and I couldn't come up with a meta language that satisfied me.

            > Will there be an Entity for things like <prereq> and <bonus> or are
            > you envisioning an Entity type for each top level type?

            Entitys are top-level objects, things we care about at the game level.
            prereqs and bonuses are implementational items; there are different
            rules and requirements for them (each Entity has an ID, a prereq need
            not).

            > > In my analysis I created a class called 'AtomicProducer' (implements
            > > Producer and Consumer). It was given a Producer and a Consumer. It
            > > collected Entity objects created by the Producer and cached them until
            > > the Producer said 'no more', then sprayed them all at the Consumer. By
            > > waiting until then, the AtomicProducer caused the happy situation of
            > > 'nothing loaded until all loaded'; a syntax error in the file would not
            > > cause the load to leave incomplete data in the system. *Incorrect* data
            > > it could do nothing about, but a syntax error wouldn't cause a problem.
            > >
            > > It took 60 lines of code. And would work with any Producer and
            > > Consumer.
            >
            > Do you have any of this code available? (rather than me rewrite it all
            > from scratch).

            I do, but I'm not satisfied with it. I never quite got around to
            building the data load portion of it. The AtomicProducer worked with
            the interfaces alone, so it didn't need the concrete classes
            implemented.

            I've got another way to do this; I'm home this week and more or less
            over my cold, so I'll try to get something cut this weekend.

            > > Other uses for this mechanism:
            > >
            > > A Producer to pull data out of LST files (obviously).
            > > A Producer to pull data out of internal data store.
            > > A Producer that picks things up off a network connection.
            > > A Consumer to dump to file (XML, LST, HTML flavors).
            > > A Consumer to write to a database.
            > > A Consumer that pushes things through a network connection.
            >
            > So we could have an LST Producer and an XML Consumer to convert all of
            > the data.

            Yep. At least, that's the plan.

            > What I would like to do is rewrite the current persistance routines to
            > use a LST Producer and and PObject Consumer, then write an XML
            > Consumer and an XML Producer.

            By PObject Consumer I assume you mean 'consumes Entity and turns into
            PObject'? If so, that's what I had in mind. Replace the entire
            persistence layer and build a more or less standalone library. Said
            library is something I need for my own work, apart from PCGen, so it's
            of significant interest to me.

            I'm trying to get my folks' computer set up on wireless; I'll be back in
            a bit.


            Keith
            --
            Keith Davies "Your ability to bang your head against
            keith.davies@... reality in the hope that reality will
            crack first is impressive, but futile"
            -- Geoffrey Brent, rec.games.frp.dnd
          • S Woodside
            Hi, I m interested in using XML output from PCGen for various purposes so I ve been lurking on this list for quite some time now hoping to see activity. Now
            Message 5 of 13 , Nov 18, 2003
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi, I'm interested in using XML output from PCGen for various purposes
              so I've been lurking on this list for quite some time now hoping to see
              activity. Now I'm happy ! :-) So some comments... (mainly on the
              subject of making the XML more usable for parsers and styling engines
              that I might write (mainly in XSLT))

              On Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 05:33 AM, Frugal wrote:

              > <skill id="skill.diplomacy" source.page="Chap.4, Skill Descriptions">

              General XML theory (an my opinion) is that attributes should be used
              for machine-readable information only. So, is source.page="Chap.4,
              Skill Descriptions" machine readable? It doesn't look like it.

              > <effects>
              > <bonus>SKILL|Diplomacy|2|TYPE=Synergy.STACK</bonus>

              This is not good... It's not good to have text inside an element that
              must be parsed in non-xml fashion. This sould bemore like:

              <bonus>
              <type>SKILL</type>
              <name>Diplomacy</name>
              <ranks (?)>2</ranks>
              <something>TYPE=Synergy.STACK</something>
              </bonus>

              simon

              > <effects>
              > <bonus>SKILL|Diplomacy|2|TYPE=Synergy.STACK</bonus>
              > <prereqs>
              > <preskill min="5">Sense Motive</preskill>
              > </prereqs>
              > </effects>
              > <prereqs>
              > <preskill min="5">Bluff</preskill>
              > </prereqs>
              > </effects>
              > <keystat>CHA</keystat>
              > <name>Diplomacy</name>
              > <types>Charisma</types>
              > </skill>
              >

              --
              www.simonwoodside.com :: www.openict.net :: www.semacode.org
              99% Devil, 1% Angel
            • Keith Davies
              ... I disagree with general XML theory, then. In this case, source information is held in attributes because it is applicable to all entities and data
              Message 6 of 13 , Nov 18, 2003
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 03:11:08PM -0500, S Woodside wrote:
                > Hi, I'm interested in using XML output from PCGen for various purposes
                > so I've been lurking on this list for quite some time now hoping to
                > see activity. Now I'm happy ! :-) So some comments... (mainly on the
                > subject of making the XML more usable for parsers and styling engines
                > that I might write (mainly in XSLT))
                >
                > On Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 05:33 AM, Frugal wrote:
                >
                > > <skill id="skill.diplomacy" source.page="Chap.4, Skill Descriptions">
                >
                > General XML theory (an my opinion) is that attributes should be used
                > for machine-readable information only. So, is source.page="Chap.4,
                > Skill Descriptions" machine readable? It doesn't look like it.

                I disagree with general XML theory, then. <g>

                In this case, source information is held in attributes because it is
                applicable to all entities and data elements, and inheritable. I know
                this can be done with elements, but I find attributes make it simpler
                for me.

                > > <effects>
                > > <bonus>SKILL|Diplomacy|2|TYPE=Synergy.STACK</bonus>
                >
                > This is not good... It's not good to have text inside an element that
                > must be parsed in non-xml fashion. This should bemore like:
                >
                > <bonus>
                > <type>SKILL</type>
                > <name>Diplomacy</name>
                > <ranks (?)>2</ranks>
                > <something>TYPE=Synergy.STACK</something>
                > </bonus>

                I think Frugal and I hashed this out downthread.

                And, FWIW, the <bonus> up there interprets more or less as:

                "A +2 synergy bonus to Diplomacy skill checks."

                The type is actually synergy, 'Diplomacy' is a reference to that skill,
                the '2' is the bonus value. The .STACK indicates that it can stack with
                other synergy bonuses to the same skill.

                The original example that Frugal's quoting above came out of a script I
                hacked in Perl to autoconvert things. I hadn't put a lot of thought
                into bonuses (since I'm not fluent in LST and didn't want to spend the
                time to figure out how to read the syntax at that time) so I just dumped
                the text of the tag into an element.


                Keith
                --
                Keith Davies "Your ability to bang your head against
                keith.davies@... reality in the hope that reality will
                crack first is impressive, but futile"
                -- Geoffrey Brent, rec.games.frp.dnd
              • Frugal
                ... I must confess that I have alway thought of attributes as: Things that give more information about a particular element but do
                Message 7 of 13 , Nov 19, 2003
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  <quote who="Keith Davies">
                  > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 03:11:08PM -0500, S Woodside wrote:
                  >> General XML theory (an my opinion) is that attributes should be used
                  >> for machine-readable information only. So, is source.page="Chap.4,
                  >> Skill Descriptions" machine readable? It doesn't look like it.
                  >
                  > I disagree with general XML theory, then. <g>
                  >
                  > In this case, source information is held in attributes because it is
                  > applicable to all entities and data elements, and inheritable. I know
                  > this can be done with elements, but I find attributes make it simpler
                  > for me.

                  I must confess that I have alway thought of attributes as: Things that
                  give more information about a particular element but do not make any sense
                  as an element on their own.

                  >> This is not good... It's not good to have text inside an element that
                  >> must be parsed in non-xml fashion. This should bemore like:
                  >>
                  >> <bonus>
                  >> <type>SKILL</type>
                  >> <name>Diplomacy</name>
                  >> <ranks (?)>2</ranks>
                  >> <something>TYPE=Synergy.STACK</something>
                  >> </bonus>
                  >
                  > I think Frugal and I hashed this out downthread.
                  >
                  > And, FWIW, the <bonus> up there interprets more or less as:
                  >
                  > "A +2 synergy bonus to Diplomacy skill checks."
                  >
                  > The type is actually synergy, 'Diplomacy' is a reference to that skill,
                  > the '2' is the bonus value. The .STACK indicates that it can stack with
                  > other synergy bonuses to the same skill.

                  And here is one I prepared eariler ;O)

                  <skill id="skill.diplomacy" source:page="Chap.4, Skill Descriptions"
                  acheck="false" exclusive="false" useuntrained="true">
                  <name>Diplomacy</name>
                  <types>
                  <type>Charisma</type>
                  </types>
                  <bonuses>
                  <bonus kind="SKILL" key="Diplomacy" formula="2"
                  bonustype="SYNERGY" stacks="true">
                  <prereq kind="skill" key="skill.bluff" min="5"/>
                  </bonus>
                  <bonus kind="SKILL" key="Diplomacy" formula="2"
                  bonustype="SYNERGY" stacks="true">
                  <prereq kind="skill" key="skill.sense_motive" min="5"/>
                  </bonus>
                  </bonuses>
                  <keystat>CHA</keystat>
                  </skill>

                  The above example came out of the sample source code that I posted last
                  night.

                  --
                  regards,
                  Frugal
                  -OS Chimp
                • S Woodside
                  ... You mean it s easier when writing the schema, or easier to use ;-) I thinkit s OK to have source info in an attribute if it s machine readable though.
                  Message 8 of 13 , Nov 19, 2003
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 04:17 PM, Keith Davies wrote:

                    >>> <skill id="skill.diplomacy" source.page="Chap.4, Skill Descriptions">
                    >>
                    >> General XML theory (an my opinion) is that attributes should be used
                    >> for machine-readable information only. So, is source.page="Chap.4,
                    >> Skill Descriptions" machine readable? It doesn't look like it.
                    >
                    > I disagree with general XML theory, then. <g>
                    >
                    > In this case, source information is held in attributes because it is
                    > applicable to all entities and data elements, and inheritable. I know
                    > this can be done with elements, but I find attributes make it simpler
                    > for me.

                    You mean it's easier when writing the schema, or easier to use ;-)

                    I thinkit's OK to have source info in an attribute if it's machine
                    readable though.

                    simon
                  • Keith Davies
                    ... For me, both. I find really big namespaces harder to use. ... It is machine readable. The machine doesn t have to do anything but present it. I put the
                    Message 9 of 13 , Nov 19, 2003
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 08:06:07PM -0500, S Woodside wrote:
                      >
                      > On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 04:17 PM, Keith Davies wrote:
                      >
                      > >>> <skill id="skill.diplomacy" source.page="Chap.4, Skill Descriptions">
                      > >>
                      > >> General XML theory (an my opinion) is that attributes should be used
                      > >> for machine-readable information only. So, is source.page="Chap.4,
                      > >> Skill Descriptions" machine readable? It doesn't look like it.
                      > >
                      > > I disagree with general XML theory, then. <g>
                      > >
                      > > In this case, source information is held in attributes because it is
                      > > applicable to all entities and data elements, and inheritable. I know
                      > > this can be done with elements, but I find attributes make it simpler
                      > > for me.
                      >
                      > You mean it's easier when writing the schema, or easier to use ;-)

                      For me, both. I find really big namespaces harder to use.

                      > I thinkit's OK to have source info in an attribute if it's machine
                      > readable though.

                      It is machine readable. The machine doesn't have to do anything but
                      present it. I put the source information in attributes because it is an
                      attribute of the element, and all child elements that do not override
                      it. The obvious other way to do it would have entities looking at
                      sibling elements to see what to inherit... this seems very odd to me.

                      I'd make source information an element of its own if it were necessary,
                      but in this case I don't believe it is and using attributes instead
                      seems more natural.


                      Keith
                      --
                      Keith Davies "Your ability to bang your head against
                      keith.davies@... reality in the hope that reality will
                      crack first is impressive, but futile"
                      -- Geoffrey Brent, rec.games.frp.dnd
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.