I have updated the PDN 3.0 standard document, see http://10x10.org/pdn. As far as I am concerned the document is finished now.
Below is an overview of the changes that I made. If anyone notices mistakes or omissions, please let me know and I'll correct it.
Wieger
* Added a section about character encodings.
* Adapted the allowed values for the Result tag, and added a ResultFormat tag that can be used to specify uncommon result values.
* Added clk, mct, egt and emt embedded commands.
* Added TimeControlWhite and TimeControlBlack tags for specifying individual time settings.
* Added requirements for notation type and capture separators.
* Adapted the grammars to allow alpha numeric moves without separator (a3b4).
* Added documentation about when the full capture notation may/must be used.
* Added requirement about disambiguation of ambiguous moves.
* Added a comment that the empty string is always allowed for a PDN tag value.
* Added line comments starting with a %.
* Updated the PDN checker.
I have such a question. Whether PDN 3.0 standard document is compulsory in Russian and Brazilian draughts. Whether he is only regarding Draughts International.
Krzychumag wrote:I have such a question. Whether PDN 3.0 standard document is compulsory in Russian and Brazilian draughts. Whether he is only regarding Draughts International.
The PDN 3.0 standard also covers Russian and Brazilian draughts. People are free to choose whether they want to use this standard or not, but I think it would be beneficial if they do.
Is it possible to get a page in the definition that gives an overview of the changes between 2.0 and 3.0? I think that would make it easier for developers to update their implementation.
And it seems that there is a mistake in the example of the analysis, where the result is still in the PDN 2.0 format (1-0 instead of 2-0 for an international game)
everytime is a good time to take your time to have a good time
Wishmaster wrote:Is it possible to get a page in the definition that gives an overview of the changes between 2.0 and 3.0? I think that would make it easier for developers to update their implementation.
And it seems that there is a mistake in the example of the analysis, where the result is still in the PDN 2.0 format (1-0 instead of 2-0 for an international game)
Thanks for noticing the mistake in the example. I just fixed it.
The most important difference between PDN 2.0 and PDN 3.0 is that grammars are being used in PDN 3.0. That was done to make the standard precise. The recommended way to implement a PDN 3.0 reader is to use these grammars. I don't want to encourage people to tweak their existing implementations using an imprecise description of changes. Implementing a PDN 3.0 writer should be easy enough without referring to the PDN 2.0 standard.
