Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:40:06 10/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2000 at 05:33:35, Francesco Di Tolla wrote:
>On October 18, 2000 at 22:35:43, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>I totally disagree here. The purpose of a "standard" is _not_ "flexibility".
>>It is preciseness.
>
>Yes but a bad standard remains a bad standard: pgn is a bad standard brecause it
>requires a lot of stupid things.
>
>E.g.: why on earth the line of the text should be fixed? I see only good reasons
>for not fixing it.
I never took it as a line _must_ be 79 chars. I took that as a max, and I
stay a bit below it.
>
>Than the handling of variations and comments is not specified properly.
What about () and {}? I implemented those with no problems, and allow them
to be nested as deep as anyone can go.
>
>I think we need a better standard and I hope it will be an XML-based one.
>
>regards
>Franz
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.