[mmox] xxSD working group?
Catherine Pfeffer <cathypfeffer@gmail.com> Tue, 24 February 2009 14:40 UTC
Return-Path: <cathypfeffer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90B993A69A0 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:40:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.057
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.057 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.541, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bbs2gsZVosEz for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:40:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.175]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F16C53A6887 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:40:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j40so247513ugd.15 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:40:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=PJQZSLkdvw+2zevJl/h5JA7BI0njKsFP6L4IS44jXpw=; b=jUWoLeWkkA5Q6hx5GTtaT0RW3UskvLmZuLrjtR2pdyrgqHiRricVp0FcVK5P6ndEER q1l6cRGz4FlaTlD2FfaZFJDEVHVfFaFT73ZXRLd4H6pDwpA1lxApNN7l5aZnXwe7xyxd DQPz9IsA6eNg4vV+7QAsFEZ7pmgYyVw4NWFGQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=dW2zxdRmIi5lIosyzP/3M65Iv+X58ViM/JcmyIUNcW20G5EWgtFyOX1LHXctW3pKLW 9o5LACRl5kRo9iO2CpR+Anm6V/9BTAwZR/rYYRy25An1Zrh3VSXynXEdwsOqrnwRmEvX xAvDpZzEeRX/HWq10g6RcqCaHWg9X4mgOk0OE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.210.129.19 with SMTP id b19mr4418774ebd.190.1235486459105; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:40:59 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:40:58 +0100
Message-ID: <ebe4d1860902240640u4e24ac2an5d4a2686286eb40e@mail.gmail.com>
From: Catherine Pfeffer <cathypfeffer@gmail.com>
To: mmox@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0015174be96685136e0463ab1bfa"
Subject: [mmox] xxSD working group?
X-BeenThere: mmox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Massively Multi-participant Online Games and Applications <mmox.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox>, <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox>
List-Post: <mailto:mmox@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox>, <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:40:46 -0000
Infinity wrote: > Catherine... Jon... > > can you create a proposal for a next generation XML serialization? Yes I can. > the existing serialization is in current use by SL, OpenSim and PyOGP, Really? I am surprised to hear that, because I had once the curiosity to run Wireshark to sniff packets exchanged by my Second Life client with the simulators, and I saw that the binary serialization was used all the time, even when using the new capacities system. Could you please point me to a situation where I could test the existing XML serialization? > so there's probably going to be a lot of resistance to changing > something that currently works and is deployed. Infinity, we need to make once for all clear whether this is just a Linden Lab existing technologies rubber stamping work group, or if we are designing vendor independent protocols for the 3 dimensional web of the future. While I agree there is no reason to throw away existing stuff (like LLSD's simplicity) when it is cool, I think that every bit of the technology should be evaluated, and replaced when it has conceptual flaws in it. If you disagree with this position, please state it clearly, and I would be happy to withdraw from this mailing list and to go to other projects where I might be more useful. Similarly, if Linden Lab's position is "let them speak and then enforce our own stuff at the end", please also spare my time. > keep in mind, however, that OGP does not use XML to represent it's > PDUs, it uses LLSD. XML is one of three defined serializations of > LLSD. it's a subtle difference, but important. I have it in mind, even though the rationale for using three different serializations is far from being clear to me. > for instance... is there a benefit to explicitly adding support for > namespaces to the XML serialization? That's a very good question. What would be the purposes of such namespaces? > there was a bit of discussion > about this amongst some AWG members, and the consensus was... "why > bother? the XML (presentation layer) is not the place where you want > to extend the PDU... you want to extend it in the LLSD / LLIDL > definition of the interaction." Makes sense. But this reasoning apparently assumes that the namespaces would be used to extend the interoperability standard. Normally, namespaces are rather used to mix data from different standards. That could be *very useful* if we want to mix LLSD for example with a mesh description expressed in another standard. Or to be able to include SVG graphics. Etc. While this would be very powerful, that would not scale back to the two other serializations, because it's pure XML mechanisms. (That's not the only point where needing support for three serializations has drawbacks. For example, LLIDL would become unnecessary if using only XML, because the names and types of the fields could be stored in schema or DTD fragments, or even in a WSDL dictionary. But never mind.) > but, i still think it's an interesting idea as it might allow systems > that use XML serialization exclusively to extend display and > distribution options of various PDUs. -- Cathy
- [mmox] xxSD working group? Catherine Pfeffer
- Re: [mmox] xxSD working group? Christian Scholz
- Re: [mmox] xxSD working group? Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)
- Re: [mmox] xxSD working group? Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] xxSD working group? Lawson English
- Re: [mmox] xxSD working group? Jon Watte