Re: [vwrap] Status and future of the VWRAP working group

Right, we need to produce documents. Part of the reason we are stalled
is that the current drafts were critisized, most notably by Morgaine,
but no concrete steps were taken to follow up on the critisism.

So, i agree with Katherine her proposal (in another tread) and suggest
we keep working within the current charter. What we could do is the
absolute bare minimum of change to the drafts to keep us floating, and
start a campaign for new blood. This is such a cool project, i simply
can't imagine we wont be able to attract some new people that can help
to make it happen.

-- Vaughn

On 3/26/11, Izzy Alanis <izzyalanis@gmail.com> wrote:
> Was that an argument for or against LLSD?
>
> Of course this all may not matter unless somebody actually addresses the
> underlying issue: That the group needs to start producing documents.
>
>   - Izzy
>
>
> On Mar 25, 2011, at 7:03 PM, "Patnad Babii" <djshag@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The more the protocol is standard the more it will attract new user to it,
>> I
>> mean if we choose XML, there's alot of people who already know / use XML.
>> It will be easier for them without learning a completely new set of tools.
>>
>> What is important for VWRAP is that in the end it get adopted by as many
>> game developer as possible. So using the standards the industry has to
>> offer
>> seem just the right thing to do.
>>
>> -----Message d'origine----- From: Izzy Alanis
>> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 6:52 PM
>> To: Dzonatas Sol
>> Cc: vwrap@ietf.org ; Meadhbh Hamrick ; Barry Leiba
>> Subject: Re: [vwrap] Status and future of the VWRAP working group
>>
>> No, not JSON.
>>
>> If protobuf/protocol buffers were a formal standard, I would
>> unhesitatingly say protocol buffers. Since it's not a formal standard,
>> I say... protocol buffers. Just with hesitation.
>>
>> To be fair, the binary serialization of LLSD + LLIDL isn't all that
>> different from protobuf (at least at some level). But it feels wrong
>> to rely on a serialization format made specifically for virtual
>> worlds.
>>
>> We don't want to re-invent the transport level protocols, why do we
>> want to invent our own data serialization and interface definition
>> formats? LLSD implementations aren't going to be as thoroughly
>> reviewed, bug fixed, optimized, and readily available as an
>> actively-developed protocol-agnostic format like protobuf. Maybe there
>> was a good argument for LLSD when LL was still involved, but why now?
>> Other than historical reasons?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Meadhbh Hamrick wrote:
>>>>
>>>> so what would you replace LLSD with?
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no reason to replace LLSD. If I did, it wouldn't be with JSON.
>>> It
>>> strange to see how JSON was suppose to be simple eval(), yet now how
>>> turned
>>> into the same direction SQL statements have with injection problems. JSON
>>> has become complex, and maybe now people see why XML is simpler.
>>>
>>> --
>>> --- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
>>> Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> vwrap mailing list
>> vwrap@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>> _______________________________________________
>> vwrap mailing list
>> vwrap@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>