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

[Dzonatas Sol <[e-mail]>]

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