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

Dahlia Trimble <dahliatrimble@gmail.com> Sat, 07 May 2011 07:50 UTC

Return-Path: <dahliatrimble@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 3FF21E0681 for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 May 2011 00:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 xSvmMEF9XRuR for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 May 2011 00:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41BD6E06F1 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 May 2011 00:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwz13 with SMTP id 13so3492212bwz.31 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Sat, 07 May 2011 00:50:39 -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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=e40wsZSI2j5VB05PvPLtE368AzAXRKabp2FdNwlmwiU=; b=Kfi/Ltk9F5kTiEnmtWsWnX/5nny68Fr4BLEjqQEMVZjQiyoBlGdosbiVHZmd/VEGSX rZXU7vk43QLrphZ/IUTT09hw8uQcm+uliUbb25npwBaTMNpFl9eEwUKFZ+hmRk9ZOBnF VLD/s9XQGjeAShkTWnbTcrsAdm7jXzbI63NhY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=S72fTTb18MsAi6VRvEDxLtz6WcNUc8J2QehlBDUPfspQlp8Mb6Q1Li6A8ji1okVB0h U5C+ZGpcjh44Fm32cCxPj5141ybRMubxCP64LaRGIPJpNOvxRfxajgEfndlVyi2lGMtK 1OcNVW0P4E2d5Cd71mQBSz0xfw4E47QVRHrsM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.41.206 with SMTP id p14mr2542821bke.53.1304754317625; Sat, 07 May 2011 00:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.79.66 with HTTP; Sat, 7 May 2011 00:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTim4aY7oNALbOfZ2V-htivVmQJZDiA@mail.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> <BANLkTikTYpLHM=GAeGAVfufqZ5XT0FSAzw@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=kjBSuMjPcgfXTUvZ3iwmS1bN50Q@mail.gmail.com> <4DC17704.3020201@gmail.com> <BANLkTimpGpNrkE3WUdurduqrVumocDRwfQ@mail.gmail.com> <4DC1824B.6040609@gmail.com> <BANLkTi=hhsiDs=fdZRsthp_+5Hs+pR4L6A@mail.gmail.com> <4DC1956A.5020204@gmail.com> <BANLkTik8rnsKP4xq+Gj5G4dsG=UOVnkNSQ@mail.gmail.com> <4DC1A8C9.9090406@gmail.com> <BANLkTikkOS34CC+ML0JNJgHDoRqbs9rY9w@mail.gmail.com> <4DC1D165.7010705@gmail.com> <4DC1D5FC.6040608@gmail.com> <BANLkTik81Eht3NTdLXXmgqOWvjc2s_KBnw@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=-heHa35w43te0ba8NufkT+MP+CQ@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTin6ExR7+xpodbtoTAS_4WyhUXL92Q@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTikjKib79_rLR_s2X=X-ss-+V_yw+w@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTim4aY7oNALbOfZ2V-htivVmQJZDiA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 00:45:17 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=7MDUAfjJb697uRwrrxB-4v5fQ3A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dahlia Trimble <dahliatrimble@gmail.com>
To: Joshua Bell <josh@lindenlab.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec555517a9f090304a2aac9a8
Cc: vwrap@ietf.org
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: Sat, 07 May 2011 07:50:43 -0000

I believe python supports very large integers. Try this in your python
interpreter:

>>> bigint = 2**(2**16)
>>> print bigint

I first became aware of missing integer types in LLSD when I was coding the
event queue messages to support group chat in OpenSimulator. It seems that
"region handles" are 64 bit integers in the LL protocols but are encoded as
a base64 encoded binary blob in LLSD as LLSD has no support for integers
larger than 32 bits. I suspect that changing LLSD to have larger integer
types might create some compatibility issues with existing implementations
that expect to use the binary blob.


On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Joshua Bell <josh@lindenlab.com>; wrote:

> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Vaughn Deluca <vaughn.deluca@gmail.com>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
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>