But that's backward compatibility. We don't write code that compiles on old compliers even though we can compile older code on new compilers.
Which is exactly what is being suggested by me. We can improve SGF without losing the ability to read older SGF files with no sweat. - Don steve uurtamo wrote: > to be fair, most K&R code will compile on modern > compilers, if you ask nicely. > > s. > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: computer-go <computer-go@computer-go.org> > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 8:42:15 AM > Subject: Re: [computer-go] XML alternatives to SGF > > > There is a lot to be said about standards, but common sense should > prevail. Very few things have remained the same in computers, such > as the program language you use. I've programmed for years and C is > not the same as it was when I started and will not compile on the > original compilers. Is that a bad thing? Heck no! I much prefer > the advancements over slavish devotion to remain compatible at all > costs. > > On the other hand I don't think standards should be broken at the drop > of a hat. Microsoft breaks standards on purpose as a matter of > course just to remain incompatible and to distinguish themselves and > discourage people from moving to superior operating system. > > GTP pretty much replace GMP. A lot of resistance because GMP was the > defacto standard at the time. It would have been foolish to insist on > being backwards compatible. > > I think this is a good move. Make your software read both formats > seamlessly, and make it write either format optionally. Provide > conversion utilities that convert in both directions. It's a > relatively painless improvement to SGF. > > - Don > > > > > Jeff Nowakowski wrote: > >> On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 01:16 -0700, Phil G wrote: >> >> >>> As a community, I believe we can improve SGF by extending the >>> specification slightly to allow points to also be encoded in >>> "standard" coordinates and depreciated, admittedly slowly, the use >>> > of > >>> the old coordinate system. We already see Go programs (SmartGo, >>> > GoGui > >>> and others) supporting this format. Maybe this can be a key point in >>> the proposed FF[5] specification. >>> >>> >> As a community, I don't think we should support *breaking* an >> > existing, > >> well-established data format over something as trivial as the >> > coordinate > >> system used. There are much bigger issues with sgf, such as not >> > being > >> able to follow a teaching review that jumps around nodes. >> >> What I would support is a new standard that was backwards compatible >> with existing tools. >> >> -Jeff >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> computer-go mailing list >> computer-go@computer-go.org >> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
