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

[Dzonatas Sol <[e-mail]>]

I considered LLSD format not just for legacy reasons, yet LL obviously 
used it because it is easier to document. It can be improved, yes, so I 
don't see the argument about it's extensibility of any merit. If the 
data can be traslated to XML, then we know we can further translate into 
other types or formats that work better. Usually that 'better' is 
something considered 'obvious' with RFCs, and that's where we 
'obviously' don't have to update the RFC.

There is enough reason to update the RFC for combined queries (and 
further denote such in LLIDL for pivotal data), yet seems like people 
have gone other routes, like SPDY, to accomplish the same basis in 
connection pipelines. I think the IDL needs to be in as format that 
others WGs besides VWRAP can use, and to denote the pivotal data only 
focuses more on the region-agent transistions. Realize that we are not 
all on the same scale as we work this, which is normal.

I don't see why to update the RFC if it doesn't at least address that. 
Otherwise, I'm not against either LLSD or DSD. I do prefer the symbolic 
assembly equivalent before the plain english equivalent The symbolic 
equivalent tends to avoid use of reserved words in LLIDL.

I think the extensibility of LLSD is moot given the XML translation is 
given. Anybody can further extend the XML data. For example, here is 
JSONx: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rsalz-jsonx . So, from XML 
to XML of those documents two are now trivial WIP.

On 05/04/2011 05:24 AM, Morgaine wrote:
> You're mixing up two very different questions, Meadhbh:� the first is 
> whether anyone is going to use DSD for something personally (in the 
> way that they have already used LLSD in the past), and the second is 
> whether VWRAP might adopt DSD for its type system.
>
> The answer to the first is clearly "*Yes*" because it's already been 
> done with LLSD in an ad hoc fashion.� However, it would be excellent 
> if you were to publish a proper RFC on DSD, and even better if you 
> could provide an actual library and bindings/API for it.� None of the 
> current implementations of LLSD went as far as creating separate and 
> directly usable LLSD API projects maintained by their creators, as the 
> libomv and C++ implementations are entangled within the very large 
> codebases of their respective projects, and the other implementations 
> are poor quality and not maintained.� You could do much better than 
> they did, and keep a discrete DSD library afloat and up to date.� That 
> would ensure its survival.
>
> The answer to the second question is equally clearly "*No*", because 
> IETF working groups don't work through proposers' ultimatums.� A few 
> weeks ago there were significant questions raised here about whether 
> LLSD/DSD is adequate for a standard that is intended /for the future/ 
> of VWs rather than for implementing today's SL and Opensim-based 
> software, so it's clear that the issue hasn't been decided and 
> requires more examination.
>
> Carlo put it (rather bluntly) here --- 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap/current/msg00569.html .� 
> Without going into the politics of it, I want to see VWRAP have a 
> properly extensible type system, and the current LLSD does not meet 
> that requirement.� Indeed, in the early days of our IETF effort, we 
> spent months discussing the width of integers in LLSD because there 
> was only *one width* allowed and it was *hardwired* in the spec.� 
> That's not an extensible approach to data types at all.
>
> We need to do a lot better in this area if we really mean "extensible" 
> when we say "extensible".� At present that ADT proposal is not 
> extensible in any meaningful way.
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
> ====================
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     is anyone in this group still interested in using LLSD (or it's
>     successor, DSD)?
>
>     if so, i'm going to publish the DSD draft here. if not, i'm going to
>     wait for the group to say "we are in no way interested in LLSD or DSD"
>     and then submit it as an individual submission to the RFC editor. it's
>     been about three years, and i would really like to get an RFC
>     published so i can take the X- off all my application/llsd family of
>     mime types.
>
>     so... may i see a show of hands... is anyone still planning on
>     implementing a system with LLSD in this group?
>
>     please just respond yes or no in reply to this thread. i'll start
>     another thread for discussion.
>
>     -cheers
>     -meadhbh
>     --
>     meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
>     @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     _______________________________________________
>     vwrap mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>    


-- 
--- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant