> > >2. We have to be equally careful about reusing WML tag names with > > >different enclosed or enclosing tags. > > > > too restrictive IMO > >Not too restrictive, in *my* opinion. We could go down a long rathole >about this, but it's essentially a value and priority judgment. So >I'm not going to argue the point, I'm just going to say what I'll do. > >I think maintainability and preserving NTC is important enough to >justify bending WML a little. I also want to preserve the possibility >of embedding it in the campaign server and having it run completely >out of sight of the invoking user. > >Therefore: wearing my wmllint maintainer hat, I will *not* write a >transformation that violates NTC. Nor will I allow a transformation >that does so to remain part of wmllint's behavior. In fact, it is my >intention to add code that checks for NTC violations and aborts with an >error if it finds one. > >You can believe my priorities are wrong, but as long as I'm maintaining >wmllint that will be the rule.
While I'm perfectly capable of maintaining wmllint, I'd rather not start adding to my responsibilities. Honestly, I'm surprised you would resort to such an ultimatum / threat considering it was your foresight to hedge for this likelihood in the first place. I'm conviced by your argument against version stamping, but still opposed to your second point for reasons stated. The gains just don't outweigh the disadvantages. I'd rather have a logical discussion about it than to start making ultimatums, though. As a long-time WML author I had hoped you'd value my input a bit more. -- Sapient _________________________________________________________________ Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
