[mmox] LLIDL or schemas?

Catherine Pfeffer <cathypfeffer@gmail.com> Tue, 24 February 2009 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <cathypfeffer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDBE93A6A2C for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:19:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.141
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.457, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OdYDx6ShvvY9 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:19:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ew0-f164.google.com (mail-ew0-f164.google.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 923863A69F2 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:19:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ewy8 with SMTP id 8so349200ewy.13 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:20:13 -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=Efl+ycVAbKhZzPhyQBwPjEN3D6QIOUlrIRxGVJtiwlI=; b=nAqFm5/cJtEB9gD4PX1q3fxjth9LSZiOg2XSf/4akWO/raeENdlRzP/Oxt6tbeXe9X SA3MMbwzDnhPH2wamP8wXs7paV54Q3//UyIbzwHnqteCk8nI4Fc7oUM9XTCKe807TVsQ QOyTOVdK6Bb08zLBxAnC4VcxiT76IUFt9CXtI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=ZHDpcItnO8dUqzDMBTKoW0wZYoXf8DSTjLGcpc0k2QyajBvrs6dbb2Voh3T4MzYQ8G nr6Tb15pfEy78gGRl6sxoJQ9Db3JaNzfrjpJBGjOBSd5abMbhr1f1PY4CHrRkyh0yYsi EIkJOdIZl+1RmSCoBtHxxrxLXVj1Ml3tSZXI0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id h19mr26121ebh.132.1235496013035; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:20:13 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:20:13 +0100
Message-ID: <ebe4d1860902240920q50e27303k51d663a3eb21e4bb@mail.gmail.com>
From: Catherine Pfeffer <cathypfeffer@gmail.com>
To: mmox@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0015174c3d16fa77e40463ad546e"
Subject: [mmox] LLIDL or schemas?
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 17:19:55 -0000

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.