Re: [vwrap] is the group still interested in LLSD or DSD?

Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com> Wed, 04 May 2011 14:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17592E078A for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 May 2011 07:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G9wM6dKDU1VL for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 May 2011 07:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32A2CE0790 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 May 2011 07:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so886210wwa.13 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 May 2011 07:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ILHrcl0INajqBTS01ZU9zkpQ5vcqLVazb1ZZRXbZbSM=; b=B4RHu6anU46BqYFHzQ1JhlRZVgeo7QXdTJZ6zpmvkaXJ6dY8zJIkwWZXYiyuM5SCQt +omyOFf06cLUJWmfXciuC3hXa1ThB8HBylLvhP0A/x51BZW8T7C9lxuN70ncQSyWVbqe dJGeFM6LC0QtCtmATGTT3uDKDcjMjb/co7R+8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=gRVOGI7+PubHgZrtUcmbFXgKXiRo/ENCOXG4maJDEfs96eXdxfJ3+vLalREzqFg42Y RRyY3QV94eRr1rxnRa8AsqV65Ze5uD5lOZPhYNhScniw2B1Hw1vAzsYKesiZx8D8/OC+ l7EN958GplXw51dDroiY0Ah8amJk9HNittw88=
Received: by 10.216.82.142 with SMTP id o14mr1145498wee.114.1304519572116; Wed, 04 May 2011 07:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.157.75 with HTTP; Wed, 4 May 2011 07:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4DC160F0.1030201@gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=g9T5q5bVgytpxRxuE=Oc9iG2F9w@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=K8-6oL-JJoPCfz0JjDpaRBpeOyg@mail.gmail.com> <4DC15504.3090503@gmail.com> <BANLkTikay4xhQoZs2L0uRLSXgUMfCE9yfA@mail.gmail.com> <4DC160F0.1030201@gmail.com>
From: Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 07:32:32 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTikTYpLHM=GAeGAVfufqZ5XT0FSAzw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: vwrap@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [vwrap] is the group still interested in LLSD or DSD?
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap>
List-Post: <mailto:vwrap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 14:33:00 -0000

but the question was... yes or no... do we want LLSD or DSD (it's
successor) to be part of VWRAP moving forward?

--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * OhMeadhbh@gmail.com



On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>; wrote:
> We already know highly abstract data types that have all kinds of
> extensibility, so there is no need to reinvent that much.
>
> We just need "best fit" for the documentation and basic usage of resources
> as capabilities with LLIDL.
>
> Any further extensibility is specific to implementation, and that specific
> implementation should be expected (as common mode with RFCs). What matters
> is, can we use these data types to convey the concept? Yes, we have
> demonstrated we can.
>
> Again, I worry less about that and more about the combine queries, which
> would let you extend in many other ways besides mere serialization,
> especially when pivotal data is known.
>
> Your argument only justifies further reason for me to move and update
> SNOW-375 ( http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Dzonatas_Sol/SNOW-375 ) to
> the IETF wiki, especially if we expect STLP, which I rather forward-think
> about, instead of private unencrypted URIs.
>
>
> On 05/04/2011 07:02 AM, Morgaine wrote:
>>
>> Extensibility through XML is not extensibility of the types of the
>> underlying ADT.
>>
>> The types of the ADT are expressed through 3 canonical serializations.
>>  Those serializations merely reflect the types defined by the underlying
>> ADT, and the XML serialization alone cannot extend the underlying ADT
>> without breaking the mapping of the ADT to the other serializations.
>>
>> It's the type system itself that has to be extensible before you can
>> validly use extended types in one of its serializations.
>>
>>
>> Morgaine.
>>
>
>
> --
> --- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
> Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>