RE: [computer-go] SGF parsers

["Mark Boon" <tesuji@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Paul Pogonyshev
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 17:52
> To: tesujisoftware@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] SGF parsers
>
>
> Frankly speaking, I seriously doubt XML game record would be readable
> even without nesting up to level 300.  Of course you can read it in
> principle, but (for me) it seems so difficult, that I cannot imagine
> another need for manual editing of game records other than debugging.

To me something like:

<move color="black" x="16" y="4"/>
<move color="white" x="3" y="4">
	<mark type="black" x="10" y="3"/>
	<mark type="triangle" x="16" y="4"/>
	<comment>
		Any text you like
	</comment>
</move>
<move color="black" x="3" y="16"/>

etc...

would be quite readable, even though it's more verbose. Or *because* it's
more verbose as I think it's much more readable than SGF, which is obviously
designed for computers to read, not for normal humans.

> > [...]
> >
> > You say SGF parser are available. So why is it then that just about
> > everyone on this list seems to have built his own?
>
> Not speaking for everyone, but for me it was just interesting to
> write my own.  And I do heavy optimization because it is interesting,
> not because I think they are very important (they _are_ important,
> but not very.)
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, you have been already proposed with a few options
> of already existing parsers.

Yes, and so the question remains.

> In any case, XML has to be interpreted even after parsing.  That seems
> to be not much easier than a simple SGF parser.  But maybe the major
> reason why I don't like XML in place of SGF is compatibility.  While
> almost any more or less complete Go program out there understands SGF
> and there are really many game records in SGF, this is certainly not
> the case for XML.  Switching formats and burying compatibility is not
> justified for me, especially as I don't see significant advantages of
> XML.

I agree that it seems that parsing SGF is not much harder than interpreting
XML.

Everyone has their own reasons to use certain things. It seems you dislike
XML used for Go. Others think differently. But I think I'll just stick to
SGF for now too, until a good XML standard for Go emerges.



_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/