Re: [vwrap] The <embed> tag... is the group still interested in LLSD or DSD?

Meadhbh Hamrick <> Sat, 07 May 2011 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 562EBE06C5 for <>; Sat, 7 May 2011 08:19:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QM+DhcZpejwE for <>; Sat, 7 May 2011 08:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66277E06BA for <>; Sat, 7 May 2011 08:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so3042002wwa.13 for <>; Sat, 07 May 2011 08:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=lcz+vOcBeiBqIS1EFjG+OX27NbYSgBfMkQeNeYwfsYo=; b=JLRkex/4Xdyw7pMbQl5rN2M1TpsFlwGq534Nr9FSjzX1yUwYPjm4o0Gro9Gqope6dr 0TpE7eV668YMIDLlxcIk6psi4vXmcaYHh0Opck2S7ZctOW6c4zEj4crNIIfX4HuycC99 gzEUhK2ZeRH6iH/MLozUIirNoeCe3fZZdWpr0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=hm1aEsduR6P6/9R7LkF4wpU8h/RQd5B11ZH1wxif5JQ47+eqNEM0+KYPHUi7Xv2bab FNVwyDcfkIXuvUVKAyAstViSmljyD2jLFTrfCo7Qq+jHgO5P2MpjZosbe5kgW5+WIayP aE2OzVwMsc4ltI5+7L6LiPWDH3HqwsK9ESWXQ=
Received: by with SMTP id k7mr4818996wej.95.1304781583083; Sat, 07 May 2011 08:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 7 May 2011 08:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Meadhbh Hamrick <>
Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 08:19:23 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Joshua Bell <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [vwrap] The <embed> tag... is the group still interested in LLSD or DSD?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 15:19:46 -0000

Josh, it's even worse than that.

Python inherits the integer size from the compiler that generated it.
So, if you compile python on a system with a 16 bit int (which used to
be pretty common in some embedded systems) you get a version of python
that uses 16 bit ints.

I think you touched on an important aspect though... JSON is meant to
be a transfer syntax and is not supposed to make assumptions about the
sizes of types on the sending and receiving system. LLSD is more than
a transfer syntax, it's an abstract type system that DOES impose
limitations on sizes for types. Sometimes it's easy to confuse the
type system with the transfer syntax.

&c &c
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * *

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Joshua Bell <> wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Vaughn Deluca <>
> wrote:
>> What were the reasons to allow onl a single integer type? There must have
>> been a good arguments for that?
> IIRC, some of the languages we wished to support (Python comes to mind) did
> not have support for integers larger than 32-bits. ECMAScript doesn't have
> integer number types at all only IEEE 754 64-bit floats; if you constrain
> the input and output to 32-bit integers it can represent those accurately,
> but not 64-bit integers.
> If you look at the history of LLSD, it started with 3 serialization formats
> that explicitly specified the type of values - XML, binary, and "notation" -
> a compact text serialization intermediate in size between binary and XML.
> The IETF drafts dropped notation and added JSON. The JSON serialization was
> "lossy" as LLSD describes types and values that don't exist in JSON
> (Integer, Date, UUID, NaN, Infinity, etc). By design, though, the type
> conversions described in the LLSD Draft accommodate e.g. by serializing a
> Date as an ISO 8601 string, which when interpreted as a date by the receiver
> results in the original Date by the string->date conversion rules. (I don't
> know if we had resolved every issue with JSON serialization; certainly,
> discussion about edge cases on this list never made it into a draft).
> As far as adding new types: I believe there was the belief that this could
> be accommodated by defining an "LLSD2" at some point in the future with a
> distinct MIME type for serializations (e.g. application/llsd2+xml); unlike
> the Web, content negotiation over HTTP was assumed to be functional within
> VWRAP interoperation. Therefore, there was no push to ensure LLSD "v1" was
> internally extensible or comprehensive for all imaginable scalar/structured
> types.
> Anyway... if contributors have implementation of abstract data type systems
> that share characteristics with LLSD and are thinking about adding
> additional scalar/structured types, they should look at the issues with both
> implementation languages and serialization formats.
> -- Josh
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list