Re: [ogpx] VWRAP is going no where.

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Joshua Bell <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Implementing *what's in the current drafts*, and implementations in
> different languages. The implementations used/shared previously targeted
> older drafts.
>
>
Well that's a problem, since what is in the *current drafts* reflects the
original OGP with its single-world, single-policy bias which has taken us so
long to overcome in this group.  Implementing the current drafts loses the
very good progress we had made with yourself concerning regions determining
region policy and providing another source of seed caps.  None of this is in
the current drafts.

We have made some good progress in VWRAP, particularly in September.  If
that progress is lost through implementing the original OGP then this
working group is back to square one.  That would be a shame.

>
>
>
> Meadhbh received feedback from several implementers *in private
> communication* (including some internal at Linden), and some of the
> feedback from back in the MMOX days still needs to be addressed. She's
> attempting to consolidate that feedback into another draft ready for further
> feedback from the group and prototype implementations.
>
> The specifics I'm aware of are allowing for LLIDL to express unidirectional
> messages and updates to the variant syntax. There were also some concerns
> raised about loss of precision while round-tripping real values through
> text-based serialization, but those were resolved without spec changes.
>
>
You know how we feel about "*private communication*" being prioritized above
open VWRAP discussions.  It's not the way to go, as various people have
pointed out.  If a private communication provided some really useful
material, why is the new idea not presented to us here, so that it can be
examined by the group before a new draft spec is written?


Morgaine.







==================================

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Joshua Bell <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Morgaine <[e-mail]
> > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Joshua Bell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm aware of a fair amount of *implementation work* happening right now,
>>> and Meadhbh is *cranking on revisions to the LLSD/LLIDL draft*. Yes,
>>> it's a bit quiet here, but I'm not too disturbed; there's a lot of
>>> writing/implementation to do to catch up to the state of discussions.
>>>
>>
>> Joshua, that answer just adds fuel to the worries.  Referring to the
>> highlighted sections:
>>
>> 1) *Implementation* of what?  In order to implement a protocol, one must
>> have a protocol to implement.  It is one of the worries in this group that
>> instead of working out in the group what the protocol needs to do, one or
>> two parties may be attempting to impose a de facto standard to override
>> group discussions.
>>
>
> Implementing what's in the current drafts, and implementations in different
> languages. The implementations used/shared previously targeted older drafts.
>
>
> Also (as Mike points out later in the thread), prototype implementations
> are input into the standards process, and should fuel discussion. They do
> not magically generate consensus, although they may certainly influence it
> by showing running code. That said, while I wish I was aware of some
> prototypes of that nature, I'm not.
>
>
>
>
> 2) Cranking out *revisions of LLSD/LLIDL* based on what discussions?  The
>> latest detailed discussions about LLSD/LLIDL were in MMOX.  What is being
>> revised?
>>
>
> Meadhbh received feedback from several implementers in private
> communication (including some internal at Linden), and some of the feedback
> from back in the MMOX days still needs to be addressed. She's attempting to
> consolidate that feedback into another draft ready for further feedback from
> the group and prototype implementations.
>
> The specifics I'm aware of are allowing for LLIDL to express unidirectional
> messages and updates to the variant syntax. There were also some concerns
> raised about loss of precision while round-tripping real values through
> text-based serialization, but those were resolved without spec changes.
>
>