jmccrae
commented
6 years ago Not sure if this is worthwhile? I have written code that depends on the order of the tags and others may be too.
Closed fcbond closed 4 years ago
jmccrae
commented
6 years ago Not sure if this is worthwhile? I have written code that depends on the order of the tags and others may be too.
fcbond
commented
6 years ago It is not a high priority, but it seems silly to add restrictions we don't need.
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 11:50 PM, John McCrae notifications@github.com wrote:
Not sure if this is worthwhile? I have written code that depends on the order of the tags and others may be too.
— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/globalwordnet/schemas/issues/2#issuecomment-334508183, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABD8xtCWfwShGT85pPuvsx-v1438THRmks5spPqugaJpZM4PvNNX .
-- Francis Bond http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/fcbond/ Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies Nanyang Technological University
goodmami
commented
4 years ago What problem does mixed element order solve? When reading a file you'll probably separate the definitions and synset relations into their own lists anyway, and on serialization they'll probably go back in some grouped order rather than mixed.
I just wrote a reader for LMF and I was happy to just read a block of elements of the same type and throw an error if I saw something unexpected. It may seem counterintuitive, but such restrictions are liberating. I vote for closing this as wontfix.
If in the DTD a “&” is used instead of a “,”, that would allow a different order.
Do you mean |? WIth this you need to be careful when there are required elements. E.g., if we allow mixed order elements in LexicalEntry, either the Lemma should always appear first or you need to construct many alternatives where that required Lemma is surrounded by optional other things.
fcbond
commented
4 years ago OK,
I am fine with this being closed as wontfix.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Wayne Goodman < notifications@github.com> wrote:
What problem does mixed element order solve? When reading a file you'll probably separate the definitions and synset relations into their own lists anyway, and on serialization they'll probably go back in some grouped order rather than mixed.
I just wrote a reader for LMF and I was happy to just read a block of elements of the same type and throw an error if I saw something unexpected. It may seem counterintuitive, but such restrictions are liberating. I vote for closing this as wontfix.
If in the DTD a “&” is used instead of a “,”, that would allow a different order.
Do you mean |? WIth this you need to be careful when there are required elements. E.g., if we allow mixed order elements in LexicalEntry, either the Lemma should always appear first or you need to construct many alternatives where that required Lemma is surrounded by optional other things.
— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/globalwordnet/schemas/issues/2#issuecomment-641209152, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIPZRU3632SOZRYMWDWF3TRVYHYPANCNFSM4D542NLQ .
-- Francis Bond http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/fcbond/ Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies Nanyang Technological University
Currently the order of Definition and SynsetRelation is specified in the DTD. This seems unnecessary. If in the DTD a “&” is used instead of a “,”, that would allow a different order.