Re: [mmox] XML serialization

"Hurliman, John" <> Mon, 23 February 2009 22:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DA5B3A63D3 for <>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:18:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.87
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.87 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.271, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_BACKHAIR_43=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T-ibZarcpsSi for <>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:18:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EF0C3A6817 for <>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:18:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 23 Feb 2009 14:11:24 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,256,1233561600"; d="scan'208";a="389151684"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 23 Feb 2009 14:27:12 -0800
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:18:24 -0700
From: "Hurliman, John" <>
To: "" <>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:18:22 -0700
Thread-Topic: [mmox] XML serialization
Thread-Index: AcmWAEW4YMZUOSbuTKuxaZegCQw2FgAA0oZA
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [mmox] XML serialization
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Massively Multi-participant Online Games and Applications <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:18:21 -0000

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.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: [] On Behalf Of
>Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)
>Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 1:47 PM
>To: Jon Watte
>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.
>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 mailing list