Author: Manfred Schubert
Date: 14:57:02 05/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2002 at 19:51:17, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>The problem is that you are making an assumption about the "comments". There
>are supposedly two types of comments, those using () and those using {}. If
>you expect someone to follow some sort of rules inside the {} comments, you are
>probably asking for future trouble since the standard says "comment" not
>"comment with XX meaning this, YY meaning that."
I'm not aware of comments inside ().
I made the assumption that comments inside {} are textual annotations about the
move encoded in ISO Latin 1 and intended to be read by humans. This sort of
breaks if somebody uses it for things intended to be read by a computer, since
commands formatted to be easily parsed by a computer reduce human readability.
>It is a silly practice, not a standard. :) He who tries to format text in an
>unformatted text region is asking for trouble. He will probably get plenty of
>it... :)
Well, that's not me :)
But I'll have to deal with 'his' PGN eventually.
>You have m[y opinion]
Yes, thanks a lot for the reply.
>Perhaps adding some _new_ comment types would be useful. IE
>enclosing comments inside [] as an example, with a very specific format so that
>there is room for evaluation, depth, time, etc along with a PV...
Maybe that's a good idea, but has anybody proposed this to the PGN standard
holder?
What about a standard based on XML? Wouldn't that make it easier to skip unknown
tags (and therefore be easier to extend)?
Manfred
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.