search

Pokemon-Standards-Consortium / standards

All standards documents, both final and in progress, are in this repository. Proposals are to be submitted as Issues in here.
10 stars 2 forks source link

Set code naming standard #8

Open Dillonzer opened 3 years ago

Dillonzer commented 3 years ago

Regarding the Set Code (SWSH4, TK10A, etc) are there any limitations we should be thinking of when trying to figure out what to name the missing ones?

To make sure we have a standard we should make sure we have a standard convention for naming them as well.

immewnity commented 3 years ago

For what it's worth, TCGO uses underscores in their "codes" (e.g. Promo_XY) and hyphens in their "abbreviations" (e.g. PR-XY). Of course, most places seem to use XYP as the code in this case... I think we might be able to fully avoid anything non-alphanumeric.

For lengths, I'm not sure any strict limit would need to be set. What would you see as the primary benefit of setting a limit? Field sizes?

Dillonzer commented 3 years ago

I can't think of a useful reason for a limit other than specialty sets getting out of control. (ie #1 #7 ).

egonolieux commented 3 years ago

Are we planning to extend the scope to the Japanese TCG as well in the future? Or are we primarily concerned about PTCGi?

immewnity commented 3 years ago

PSC 001 is currently scoped to:

TCG releases by Wizards of the Coast, Nintendo, Pokémon USA, and/or The Pokémon Company International

Due to how different Japanese releases are structured, maybe a separate document should be made for it? Or we could put it in a subsection of PSC 001, something like "PSC 001-J"?

On a related note, I'm not entirely sure how the other TPC regions would play in (Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, etc.)...

egonolieux commented 3 years ago

I don't think we should write a standard for all regions right away, but deciding on a document structure/standard name that supports different regions might be a good thing to decide on from the beginning.

I think suffixing the region like PSC 001-J (or PSC 001-JP) is a good idea. Maybe for consistency we should also use the -INTL or -PTCGI suffix? For standards where region does not apply, it should be left out of course.

immewnity commented 3 years ago

I don't think we should write a standard for all regions right away, but deciding on a document structure/standard name that supports different regions might be a good thing to decide on from the beginning.

I think suffixing the region like PSC 001-J (or PSC 001-JP) is a good idea. Maybe for consistency we should also use the -INTL or -PTCGI suffix? For standards where region does not apply, it should be left out of course.

That could work - using ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes for the countries, maybe? And then yeah, -INTL or similar for the rest.