RE: [sgf-std] "Long" property names?
- The problem is, Denis, that "-" is not allowed in SGF properties, so
this will beak all existing FF sgf applications. I think that
anything we do *must* work on FF parsers that follow the spec,
otherwise we are making up our own non-backward-compatible standard
I was even more cautious than this, wanting to avoid KGSXX properties if
other apps didn't accept them (since, although they are fine by the
FF spec, they are quite different from all the standard properties).
As it happens, the only app so far that doesn't accept them is my very
own CGoban 1! I don't mind that so much, people still use it but it
wouldn't be hard to fix in this case.
On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 10:55, Denis Lambot wrote:
> As others said, the problem with custom properties is that they can
> become a problem when the specification are extended with new
> properties. So there is always the possibility of a clash between the
> existing custom properties and the new one.
> To solve this problem, may I suggest a practice which is common in
> Internet protocol for custom properties (e.g. in SMPT Mail header,
> MIME type, and some others). The idea is to prefix the custom
> properties with "X-". This prefix is reserved for custom properties
> and new version of the specification never use "X-" for new
> We can further take the convention to have "X-<APPNAME>-<TAG>. So for
> the KGS custom properties this would be X-KGS-DE, X-KGS-SB, ...
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Rui Jiang [mailto:ruijiang2000@...]
> Envoyé : samedi 3 avril 2004 06:06
> À : email@example.com
> Objet : Re: [sgf-std] "Long" property names?
> 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:
> 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.
* Bill Shubert (wms@...)
- William M. Shubert wrote:
> I was even more cautious than this, wanting to avoid KGSXX properties ifI use it :-)
> other apps didn't accept them (since, although they are fine by the
> FF spec, they are quite different from all the standard properties).
> As it happens, the only app so far that doesn't accept them is my very
> own CGoban 1!
Speaking about old SGF programs: personally I would not mind at all, if
long property names broke old SGF applications. It would lead to people
updating their applications (which have fewer bugs - I hope). Of course,
you would have to take some heat, Bill.
Go ahead and use long property names. SGFC has an artificial limit at
about 100 letters for property names :-)