Future Tech Wishlist

[BeerSkunk]

XML Format

I thoroughly agree on an XML standard for data. It would provide a terrific means of allowing interoperability between software programs. One thing I am incorporating with my Campaign Manager software that I'm working on is the import and export of XML data. I think it's an essential requirement for any character creation/management program. The design of my DTD is still in its infancy, but I'm willing to share it with anyone who is interested.

The biggest problem right now is that there is no standard. The format for my program will be different from RPMs whose is different from DMGenie, whose is different from...etc. etc. A standardization of an XML format would go a long way to improving the current mixing bowl of file formats and program options. If we had a common format to export to and import from, then everyone would benefit. Players wouldn't be required to use the same software in order to share character info with each other. Everyone could use the program they liked the most without any conflicts between them. That, imo, would be great.

If anyone is aware of a group working on an XML standard for D20 data, please let me know. I'd like to keep track of it so I can plan for including it in my software.

I really like the idea of a fold-out battlemap linked to a PC or desktop that could display images. I really don't like the idea of how much it would cost.

 

[deltacoder]

what the heck - I have yet to hear of a group working on a d20 XML standard, so why not start one? We can set it up on sourceforge to take advantage of the larger community...

If anyone else is interested post here or email me - deltacoder@dr.com

 

[Twin Rose]

what the heck - I have yet to hear of a group working on a d20 XML standard, so why not start one? We can set it up on sourceforge to take advantage of the larger community...

One problem is that some libraries for XML use - and certainly sourceforge - require different licensing such as the GPL. These licenses are pretty much incompatible with the OGL and d20STL - something that producers of RPG software must be wary of.

 

[deltacoder]

sourceforge will actually allow use of other licenses - they accept proposals and review them on a case-by-case basis.

 

[MythosaAkira]

what the heck - I have yet to hear of a group working on a d20 XML standard, so why not start one? We can set it up on sourceforge to take advantage of the larger community...

There's been one in existence for over two years on Yahoo Groups:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/d20-xml/

 

[DarkWhite]

d20 XML Standard?

With regards to an XML d20 Standard, I heartily agree with BeerSkunk:

Players wouldn't be required to use the same software in order to share character info with each other. Everyone could use the program they liked the most without any conflicts between them.

However, I wonder about the wisdom of a community group devising their own "standard", versus something WotC's developers (Fluid, e-Tools?) might come up with?

I suppose this leads into a whole new debate as to the future of the d20 software market, and where WotC's "official" product (whether that be e-Tools, some future development, or nothing?) stands amongst the independent d20 developer offerings.

While I am certain that the independent d20 sofware developer community is more than capable of defining and agreeing on an XML d20 Standard, if that "standard" isn't also supported by e-Tools or other WotC software, what then?

I'm not suggesting that WotC's product needs to be the dominant one, it might not be. They might find that despite their ownership of the d20 licence, they've missed the race regarding software development, and may need to pay heed to the XML "standard" the community develops, particularly if it takes off as a means to import/export d20 data between the majority of d20 software in popular use. But since e-Tools already has an XML format (though subject to change while patches are still in the works), wouldn't it be wise for other developers to try to be compatible with that?

Another issue is which developers comprise this "community". While I have seen many independent d20 software developers post on these boards that they're willing to share ideas with other developers, I don't see the same willingness coming from Fluid. This, as well as possible copyright/IP issues, may make working on any standard compatible with e-Tools difficult?

I have been aware of the existence of the Yahoo d20 XML group, but haven't had the time to check it out yet. Anyone know how their work is progressing? I'm assuming they're working on a different XML format than the one being used by e-Tools?

One last thing, on a related issue: e-Tools requires IE6 due to XML/XSL support. However, earlier versions of IE (5 and 5.5?) supported Microsoft's early implementation of XSL. Instead of upgrading their browser to IE6, would it be possible for users of IE5 to use an XSL stylesheet developed using Microsoft's old XSL sytnax to display their character sheet?

 

[Twin Rose]

Re: d20 XML Standard?

With regards to an XML d20 Standard, I heartily agree with BeerSkunk:

However, I wonder about the wisdom of a community group devising their own "standard", versus something WotC's developers (Fluid, e-Tools?) might come up with?

I suppose this leads into a whole new debate as to the future of the d20 software market, and where WotC's "official" product (whether that be e-Tools, some future development, or nothing?) stands amongst the independent d20 developer offerings.

While I am certain that the independent d20 sofware developer community is more than capable of defining and agreeing on an XML d20 Standard, if that "standard" isn't also supported by e-Tools or other WotC software, what then?

I'm not suggesting that WotC's product needs to be the dominant one, it might not be. They might find that despite their ownership of the d20 licence, they've missed the race regarding software development, and may need to pay heed to the XML "standard" the community develops, particularly if it takes off as a means to import/export d20 data between the majority of d20 software in popular use. But since e-Tools already has an XML format (though subject to change while patches are still in the works), wouldn't it be wise for other developers to try to be compatible with that?

Another issue is which developers comprise this "community". While I have seen many independent d20 software developers post on these boards that they're willing to share ideas with other developers, I don't see the same willingness coming from Fluid. This, as well as possible copyright/IP issues, may make working on any standard compatible with e-Tools difficult?

I have been aware of the existence of the Yahoo d20 XML group, but haven't had the time to check it out yet. Anyone know how their work is progressing? I'm assuming they're working on a different XML format than the one being used by e-Tools?

One last thing, on a related issue: e-Tools requires IE6 due to XML/XSL support. However, earlier versions of IE (5 and 5.5?) supported Microsoft's early implementation of XSL. Instead of upgrading their browser to IE6, would it be possible for users of IE5 to use an XSL stylesheet developed using Microsoft's old XSL sytnax to display their character sheet?

An "official" Character Generator and Monster Generator is an entirely different sort of thing that what many of the developers are working on, and if you think so, then perhaps you should explore some of the softwares made available to people out there.

Wizard's of the Coast contracted a third party to make a basic generator for their core 3 products, but in no way does it support any third party d20 publications - and certainly isn't compatible with any map programs available on the market, nor does it touch on combat management, campaign worlds, class editting, or any of these features.

Campaign Suite will be a year old since first release, as of next week. Sales have steadily increased, more so in the months since the release of eTools, and I expect them to continue to grow as more features are added and more data is available to the consumer. I certainly have no intention of crippling my product to make it compatible with the very basic XML provided by eTools, nor should I. The d20 system is much more than "Dungeons & Dragons" the three core rulebooks - that's the whole point of teh system, and the Open Gaming License.

Whether or not a standard comes to be is a matter for some debate - every software designer has their own idea for how things "should be done" to maintain compatiblity and legality with the OGL and d20 STL. I hope that a standard does become available, or that we begin writing import/export features to eachothers products - it's only good business. But I think a good number of developers, and more importantly their customers, believe their products to not only be competitive but superior in many aspects (Say, class editors) than any "official" product meant to support the core rulebooks alone.

 

[DarkWhite]

Point taken re D&D vs d20/OGL .. though similar, they are indeed different beasts, and cater to different audiences.

I am fully aware of what e-Tools is and isn't capable of, and that third party software fills many of these gaps. However, I see the d20 software market a young emerging one, and there is still plenty of opportunity for growth in many areas by different players. Choice of software is quite a matter of personal taste, and individual needs. I suspect that Campaign Suite's sales have increased moreso in the months since eTools release points to consumers going online seeking eTools support, and instead finding viable alternatives to that software. More credit to third party developers!

All the more need for a common d20 XML standard. However, your point is valid that d20 is broader than D&D, and eTools only purposes to support core D&D.

Some of the other areas you raised: mapping, campaign worlds, class editing, even eye colour, which eTools does not support, are also data which could benefit by being codified in XML so that the data can be shared with other programs which might display or use this data in their own way.

Though with the d20 publishing industry being the can of worms that it is: one new rules variant after another; one wonders whether there could ever be a d20 XML standard, or whether it will be like trying to hit a moving target?

Finally, XSL can also be used to transform XML documents into *other* XML documents of a different format. While this strays from the ideal of one common d20 XML format to be shared by all, it should provide a means of converting data between the "community" standard and "rogue" XML formats, such as the format eTools uses (though unsupported data "eye colour?" will understandably be lost, or simply unrecognised, in the process).

 

[Twin Rose]

Though with the d20 publishing industry being the can of worms that it is: one new rules variant after another; one wonders whether there could ever be a d20 XML standard, or whether it will be like trying to hit a moving target?

This is probably one of the largest problems that I run into with the writing of Campaign Suite. Nearly every month something new and innovative will come along that will make me ask, "How can I do that?" and may well need to change things in the file format to accomodate that. Who would have guessed, in months past, that there would be "Prestige Races" or "Occupations" that let you choose 3 class skills, and if they're already class skills, you get +1 modifiers? What miht be next? Choose 3 or 1 with a +3 modifier? It's hard to say. The data needs to be robust and smart enough to count on these factors.

 

[gregweller]

The connection that I'm going to make here might seem a bit arcane and tenuous, but then when have EN-Worlders ever shied away from the arcane and tenuous?

There's a similar discussion going on in the library world (and I know we have a couple of library people around here) about the limitations of the MARC (machine-readable cataloging) format for bibliographic records. The MARC record has been used since the 60s to capture bibliographic information, mostly about *physical* objects. The argument goes that MARC has outlived it's usefulness as libraries increasingly deal with electronic texts and databases.

My point here is that the MARC record is analogous to the paper character sheet, and that by standardizing on an XML format that will capture character information as a starting point we can overcome the limitations of the character sheet in a post pen and paper world. Another thing that XML standardization will enable is better use (or use at all ) of metadata for resource discovery and data harvesting within the RPG community in general.

Another thing you see in the library community and the knowledge industry in general is the development of ontologies to be used with the categorization of data objects. I think that the RPG community as a whole could benefit with some sort of stadard ontology that would cut across individual RPG systems.

If you want to read more about XML and MARC, check out these two articles available online from Library Journal. Again, I think that if these are looked at with an open mind, there might be a lot to be gained by the RPG community:

http://libraryjournal.reviewsnews.c...ital+Libraries&industryid=3760&verticalid=151

http://libraryjournal.reviewsnews.c...ital+Libraries&industryid=3760&verticalid=151