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

Dzonatas Sol <> Wed, 04 May 2011 16:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5169DE0684 for <>; Wed, 4 May 2011 09:45:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.949
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.350, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kZyC9ycqjpMk for <>; Wed, 4 May 2011 09:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6542AE0794 for <>; Wed, 4 May 2011 09:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pvh1 with SMTP id 1so745931pvh.31 for <>; Wed, 04 May 2011 09:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=uoDVbTAJsSR3PLhTFpWTjwEzoYu8CO0G4jl9W8uzIpM=; b=E/dyEOyKRr5PwmEI20dPdQB2igXKwdNcVD3ccBc2F7cTC2/x6cPc6DR5mSeGKS6XK7 rVVLWTZ/xrzdJo5vk2Gk5xXDY8aT8JfKCDhRcXr5s9hp88sKLXvl/g/ygiiB6ANuAkaA oq3LKpTG/7jO38Hhd9cIbWKRPHMkBRNVxh4vc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=DG710N8iwMQMqbQwB4dS/nKAEWd0AVWobdGnZuIHVR/MZkMibYsiWQq+w8x/vMwUbe d9bV3fHR27xmke052Rv4Uzjl9i84HPJwmwdmx1LxH40XmZV2NMcFHImW/u5GbGp9DWS4 HIw6d71GfXd1pRssuTIqiH6dFh1lSOzzvRN0I=
Received: by with SMTP id c10mr1694655pbo.448.1304527501139; Wed, 04 May 2011 09:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPS id 5sm835288pbn.25.2011. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 04 May 2011 09:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 09:43:55 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110307 Icedove/3.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Morgaine <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:, Meadhbh Hamrick <>
Subject: Re: [vwrap] 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: Wed, 04 May 2011 16:45:02 -0000

On 05/04/2011 09:06 AM, Morgaine wrote:
> I gather that you don't understand the type model of LLSD + 
> serializations then.

That is rude for you to assume that, and also consider that I have an 
active implementation. Please, be more serious.

I know you have realized this much as you tried to promote Icesphere in 
the past, yet your political stance changes too often. Such talk doesn't 
belong on this list, you could have simply e-mail off list and asked 
what you don't understand about what I know. (was that you that sent me 
private email? nope, doesn't have "Morgaine" on the sender) On that 
note: I don't appreciate how you and others have treated me as the 
escapegoat! What do you expect? To send the inventor of XYZ language to 
school to certify that he knows XYZ language?

> The ADT defines the elementary data types and composite resource 
> types.  The serializations then implement both of these for transport 
> on-the-wire.  There is nothing that one specific serialization like 
> XML can do to to extend the elementary data types provided by the ADT.

LLSD was specifically stated in source as the high-level like data types 
useful at low-level languages: low-level scalar data. Go ahead and 
assume LLSD means... you know... what the "reverse engineers" called it. 
Now that Mono has LLVM, and Attachment laid of Mono-employees, we can 
only assume they didn't want to look at the source of the LL version. 
Maybe its better hands now, and less need to re-standardize and 
re-implement the CIL libraries that Microsoft already distributes.

It's helpful to read the source, yet due to much anxiety-induced fears 
of that alone your argument is endless and redundant to reinvent 
generics when that is already done.

> Your answers simply don't address the non-extensibility and 
> non-flexibility of elementary types.  The XML tail cannot wag the ADT 
> dog.  The relationship is the other way around, it's the ADT that 
> defines the elementary types, which are transported in all serializations.

I have, you just avoid the demonstrated flow and source for some reason. 
ADTs still have to stream in ordinary ways to flow.

> You keep referring to the flexibility of XML, but that is irrelevant 
> to the ADT.

You obviously want to avoid XML, despite the very implementation is 
based on plain text headers and XML data. I'm not even gonna ask why you 
avoid this over and over. Can you answer the question about region-agent 
transistion and if SLTP is viable, or do you want to continue to send 
any abstract data over clear text?

--- ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant