Re: [mmox] XML serialization

Speaking as the maintainer of OpenSim's LLSD<->XML serialization library (OpenMetaverse.StructuredData) I can say there would be zero resistance from me in adopting a better serialization. In fact, I would greet the changes with open arms, as would most people in the open source virtual world sphere. Please do not put any of the OpenSim/OpenMetaverse efforts in the same sentence when claiming that improvements will be met with resistance. If there is going to be a significant amount of resistance to anything that improves on deployed and working Second Life technology, then I don't think this will get very far.

John

>-----Original Message-----
>From: mmox-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmox-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)
>Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 1:47 PM
>To: Jon Watte
>Cc: mmox@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [mmox] XML serialization
>
>Catherine... Jon...
>
>can you create a proposal for a next generation XML serialization?
>
>the existing serialization is in current use by SL, OpenSim and PyOGP,
>so there's probably going to be a lot of resistance to changing
>something that currently works and is deployed.
>
>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.
>
>for instance... is there a benefit to explicitly adding support for
>namespaces to the XML serialization? 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."
>
>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.
>
>-cheers
>-m
>
>On Feb 23, 2009, at 12:56 PM, Jon Watte wrote:
>
>> Catherine Pfeffer wrote:
>>> <llsd>
>>>   <map>
>>>      <entry>
>>>        <key>success</key>
>>>        <boolean>true</boolean>
>>>      </entry>
>>>      <entry>
>>>        <key>something_i_like_to_eat_on_sundays</key>
>>>        <string>bananas</string>
>>>       </entry>
>>>   </map>
>>> </llsd>
>>
>> A better way is
>>
>> <map>
>> <value type="boolean" key="success>true</value>
>> <value type="string"
>> key="something_i_like_to_eat_on_sundays">bananas</value>
>> </map>
>>
>> natural way to express it.This has less of the angle bracket tax,
>> and it has a VERY straight-forward parsing style. In fact, in my
>> opinion it's the most In XPath, it's now trivial:
>> "value[@key=success]"
>>
>>
>> I'm working on a list of the things I think are wrong with the
>> current proposal, of which this is one thing (there are about six).
>> If we're open to change on those things (including this), then I
>> could get behind the LLSD. Stay tuned :-)
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> jw
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmox mailing list
>> mmox@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>
>_______________________________________________
>mmox mailing list
>mmox@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>