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

Dzonatas Sol <> Wed, 04 May 2011 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1646FE0719 for <>; Wed, 4 May 2011 07:22:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zhGL1g+RD4eG for <>; Wed, 4 May 2011 07:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AD10E06A4 for <>; Wed, 4 May 2011 07:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pvh1 with SMTP id 1so670180pvh.31 for <>; Wed, 04 May 2011 07:22:42 -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=Zzs+7JizwGPULlXzQ7UCCh+j0vyUel/d3xwPnxxenKs=; b=xC6LMtfi09dxmg1CRS5xYA+9eJRy0A1/mfF8GTMbYMe8xwl6KW/JaH+AE5QHNewauo +LtYsXfGM/FzSgoUVTSLaG832tKbyxSZ7lKA7HKA6NjyTtaf0w9vU9x0i8b/PfBnUKh1 i3O/m/0mGTzDiZgeIWNkGKWfbmyvwNAQvWz1g=
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=khv6m0Tlad4ydO2iC1bg98QbGUdQF3TmSa8lkNCkTel1CaVp0cbj8S+iL1ZivrxSrO bz4ehkEdFEGJ5h1YzBBD5vuLa2xKFqAPCkY5ZeKqs4WgNEokz2Mek3EwMbioyBFh0kcK Cc3bHDyJmcgzeQidMUfnmxGxv2o1rEr87BEIE=
Received: by with SMTP id f4mr1661224pbd.57.1304518961970; Wed, 04 May 2011 07:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPS id q10sm765907pbk.39.2011. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 04 May 2011 07:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 07:21:36 -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
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 14:22:43 -0000

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 ( ) 
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.

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