Joseph Simmons wrote:
Hi all.
I'm fairly certain this is an issue we haven't really addressed yet - if
we have, I never got the email.
There have been several changes to WML syntax, especially to the [unit]
syntax, in 1.1. These changes will only multiply. (This is, by the way,
a good thing - I'm not complaining about it.) But if the WML syntax
changes, it means campaign designers (like myself) have to decide
whether to support 1.1.x, or 1.0.x. Most of us will, most likely,
support 1.1.x.
This adds another question: do we want to strive for backwards
compatibility?
That is, do we want to make it so a campaign that works for 1.0.x will
also work for 1.1.x? That way, a campaign designer could make their
campaign work with 1.0.x and they would make it supported everywhere.
The disadvantage for them would only be that they would have to forego
using features that are available in 1.1.x. The disadvantage for us as
engine designers would be that we would have the added burden of making
things backwards-compatible.
I think the backwards compatibility is fairly important though, if we
are to really stand behind 1.0.x as the 'stable' version of Wesnoth. If
we can't show that we're willing to stick behind our stable version,
Wesnoth will become an ever-changing game that is never really stable.
I don't think either of these are desirable outcomes. So, what can we do
about it? I think the best solution is to have two different campaign
servers, one for 1.0.x, one for 1.1.x.
This is a possible solution, and probably the simplest. So unless/until
someone implements a better solution, I vote we use it.
David
