[mmox] LLIDL or schemas?

[Catherine Pfeffer <[e-mail]>]

Jon said:
> I propose that the data structure
> definition language be moved to some XML schema.

Yes, LLIDL makes no sense in the XML world, where there are schemas (or
DTDs) for that.

That's another example of technical compromise needed by this "three
serializations" scheme.

My suggestion would be: "do only one serialization, but do it well"...
 - If XML has an angle bracket tax that is too expensive to pay, especially
on limited capability devices, then let's stick to a binary format only.
 - If XML is the way to go because it's more flexible, human-readable, and
because there's already a bunch of tools for it, then go for it only, but do
it using all the possibilities of the XML technology.

My opinion is that doing an 1:1 transposition of a binary format is just
like automatically translating French into English word per word, it gives
bad (although sometimes really funny) results.

Anyhow, who is asking for a choice between three serializations? Is there a
use case for that?

Don't take it bad, Infinity. I'm just trying to put my engineering knowledge
at the service of realistic and long-term decisions, not to destroy Linden
Lab's vision of the future.

-- 
Cathy