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

[Dzonatas Sol <[e-mail]>]

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