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

[Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>]

or... you could simply add a version tag to the contents of the LLSD.
so, an XML LLSD blob might look like:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<llsd>
  <version>2</version>
  ...
</llsd>

and a json blob might look like
{
  version: 2,
  ...
}

(though this example would require us to make the version element in a
map verboten.)

--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]



On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Dzonatas Sol <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 05/06/2011 09:18 AM, Joshua Bell wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> +1
>
> Or, Content-Type: application/llsd+1+xml
> Or, Content-Type: application/llsd++xml
> Or, Content-Type: xml-ietf-vwrap/llsd+adt+extra
>
> ...etc, would work yet I believe - and + still are transient denotations for
> with or without DTD, so...
>
> Content-Type: xml-ietf-vwrap/urn:[bank]:llsd.proxy.net:map,abstract,...
>
> Yes, LLSD as-is continues to work even without excessive headers.
>
>
> --
> --- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
> Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>