Eric S. Raymond schrieb: > The thing I most want abolished is the option to have the WML > autocomplete the file extension. Or, to put it another way, > macroscope needs all image file references to be detectable in a > context-independent way with a regular-expression match, rather than > by requiring a WML-aware parse of the file. The easiest way to do > this is to require that all references have one of a small set > of recognizable suffixes like ".png", ".wav", ".ogg", and ".jpg". > Adding to that set of extensions is not a big deal, but the set > has to exist for any tool like macroscope to have a prayer of working. > Agreed, sounds okay. Though we have some corner cases where we would have to find a way ho to handle it (attacks and their images). Though there we could make an image= tag mandatory.
> Second, the special path-search hacks dependent on enclosing tag > should go away. The fact that even *Zookeeper* (who the other devs > seem to regard as a god of WML) wasn't sure where all the edge cases > were -- and turned out to have gotten them wrong -- tells me that this > design is overcomplicated and broken. > Sounds very reasonable to me. Though the terrain.cfg file will look rather clutterd afterwards (not that it is really human readable without doing some master thesis in the area of this WML...). I still would like to have something like this. > Third, the remaining rules should be clearly and unambiguously > documented in a page that is linked from every discussion of > image attributes. > > In both the misfeatures I just called out, a shortsighted notion of > "convenience" has damaged the simplicity and transparency of WML. > Let's fix that now, early in the 1.3 branch while it's still easy. > Jepp, clear rules would be a really good thing. Especially since clear rules can more easily be automatically checked, what maybe could even be implemented ingame eg before uploading content to the campaign server. > In case it is not obvious, I am willing to do the tedious job of > upgrading the mainline WML so that it no longer relies on these > misfeatures. Doing so would be a natural way to debug macroscope, > in the same way that finding those unresolved sound references was. > > I'm also willing to write the documentation once we settle on > the new rules. > Hey, that was the last objection I would have had. If you even volunteer to do the most dirty work (removing these hacks from the sourcecode probably is nicer that writing documentation and applying the needed changes to the data/ dir) I see no objections left. Though you will have to find somebody doing the codechanges. In general: You have my support when pushing for something like this. I would even vote for no "depricated" tags for this stuff and directly drop support of the old style. Cheers, Nils Kneuper aka Ivanovic _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
