I think Lauri meant to send this to the whole group, so forward here.
----- Original Message -----
From: "lapaatero" <lauri.paatero@...>
To: "Rui Jiang" <ruijiang2000@...>
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: "Long" property names?
> Hi all,
> GOWrite 1 and 2 do not have any problems with these tags.
> Proposal below seems very sensible to me.
> I think it would be good to add recommendation about
> this practice in SGF pages, if none of major
> applications has problems.
> Only issue here is how to allocate appnames.
> Collision probability is not that big, but
> confusion it would make can be quite bad.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Rui Jiang" <ruijiang2000@h...> wrote:
> > MultiGo is OK with arbitary length tag id. So I am fine with long
> property names. I would suggest we agree on leaving length 2 tags as
> reserved tags for SGF standard (total 676), and any extension should
> be longer than 2, maybe follow the convention like:
> > <APPNAME><TAGID>
> > as you are going to use.
> > So far I have tested:
> > WinMGT: OK
> > gGo: OK
> > JagoClient: OK
> > Go Assistant: OK
> > But maybe some other older applications might break.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: William M. Shubert
> > To: email@example.com
> > Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 2:22 PM
> > Subject: [sgf-std] "Long" property names?