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

Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com> Mon, 09 May 2011 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <dzonatas@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 5D51DE080B for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2011 08:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.885
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.885 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.286, 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 jmuh8rSLZ3Yr for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2011 08:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84466E0807 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 May 2011 08:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pwi5 with SMTP id 5so3233776pwi.31 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 May 2011 08:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=j8mCEPZUb5xtMCoAOh5dUyxcWdFNqukDECssnqPof74=; b=IRKmpckLIZokO5mNEQ4kteDwFU5V42dYLXRGqPkLuru32OBhL2lB/MhaQr0726qySh /Bi9T1fm02hufPVsLdCNbnjkuaVHA21Rp4rjX/T106rr8A2sscCwBGzIWnqy7zzhgk/V 9b334Ohj+KmeEWXutHAE9i+JLldabD5uvDHto=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=jzXXtqch204KCpMyDhFuKK1tn6AWZuA5Lk4l0SeXEyfZPAlfOmcdZWM9wJLU3967ni 3/VzilWQp/5Hjg2iZsvvYTlxKmcjzk+LaN2OSaFkryhVnMSm5oxPG8Cr2Vb1QLYhc3y3 0XZ+6kykjtSTBZgJ1Pn/BIVDD521EplFXpcpY=
Received: by 10.68.44.130 with SMTP id e2mr9865860pbm.515.1304953428895; Mon, 09 May 2011 08:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.50] (adsl-70-133-70-225.dsl.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [70.133.70.225]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l7sm4158585pbo.44.2011.05.09.08.03.47 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 09 May 2011 08:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4DC8021A.3030702@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 08:02:50 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110307 Icedove/3.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vwrap@ietf.org
References: <BANLkTi=g9T5q5bVgytpxRxuE=Oc9iG2F9w@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTin=tyc+rUy=RvqCJ9r34j90v1nSGg@mail.gmail.com> <4DC6840B.9050203@gmail.com> <201105090012.50031.bobby@sharedrealm.com> <BANLkTinKU1Q_ZMigx84Xqc_HxAWPjJZmSg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinKU1Q_ZMigx84Xqc_HxAWPjJZmSg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [vwrap] The <embed> tag... 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: Mon, 09 May 2011 15:03:50 -0000

Morgaine, you haven't shown to trust LLSD as-is.

We need that much published so we can move on with what developers have 
already done for the last few years to share implementation of LLSD. 
They just have their hands tied and can't express their interest.

Then you can play with another WIP/RFC after that much is done. I don't 
see why you continue to argue to get rid of LLSD as-is. How can we trust 
you and what you want to write? You have ignored those that want to keep 
LLSD as-is.

This is why I motioned earlier to go ahead and publish the type system 
as-is because your desire to innovate from that "standard" (as-is) 
weighs-in on the reason why to keep LLSD as-is. It makes more sense this 
way.... historical.


On 05/09/2011 04:59 AM, Morgaine wrote:
> Indeed Robert.� We're defining a new ADT system for VWRAP, and LLSD 
> was merely the initial input.
>
> I think we should call the types system that we're defining something 
> like VWRAP-ATS (VWRAP Abstract Types System), to avoid it being 
> confused with the current LLSD.

-- 
--- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant