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

Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com> Mon, 09 May 2011 11:59 UTC

Return-Path: <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F8ECE07D4 for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2011 04:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.916
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6l6p4NoKPlAW for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2011 04:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46D1FE07A1 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 May 2011 04:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so3759959qwc.31 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 May 2011 04:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=n4VuEKY49OF8aPh/PqdwWMYRrUAnXig+I6P7h1Zi0s8=; b=hLGh0hZLFisgx9zpsNiVPYtsImv2s3YXqJGYuk24d/UE0gPRQF60NPBHwblRnKcE0j vy/FzDCdoWfpb5o1PTbECFdf5GZimCMb9wQ3VUDPvia4gGRacvbL4i6Lxon6Z4HSvpuR w3f8fjl2pb6ioYhReXf91fWmblEKAJBa/FpW8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=kmXwCSIKX0vA1mObIVhKfOeEWSz5Ww/cS6NkKaGaoDuFZbFrsmXoP2MX+gd5eE+M+h lsMM0v64HTW7c6Hu8v/6N994aKZStnPS7xdEmNDhugIhbHaOI06ufc7sa5l3m4yWB6i1 +y0m/NBFNfQ1Op9gq4gNVtXhRGR2rtpbly6iY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.102.85 with SMTP id f21mr4973768qco.25.1304942361269; Mon, 09 May 2011 04:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.66.212 with HTTP; Mon, 9 May 2011 04:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201105090012.50031.bobby@sharedrealm.com>
References: <BANLkTi=g9T5q5bVgytpxRxuE=Oc9iG2F9w@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTin=tyc+rUy=RvqCJ9r34j90v1nSGg@mail.gmail.com> <4DC6840B.9050203@gmail.com> <201105090012.50031.bobby@sharedrealm.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 12:59:21 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTinKU1Q_ZMigx84Xqc_HxAWPjJZmSg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
To: vwrap@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=002354471a20e5acdd04a2d6918f
Subject: Re: [vwrap] The <embed> tag... is the group still interested in LLSD or DSD?
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap>
List-Post: <mailto:vwrap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 11:59:23 -0000

Indeed Robert.  We're defining a new ADT system for VWRAP, and LLSD was
merely the initial input.

I think we should call the types system that we're defining something like
VWRAP-ATS (VWRAP Abstract Types System), to avoid it being confused with the
current LLSD.

Despite repeated explanation that nothing we define here will alter the LLSD
employed by Second Life (we don't have the power to do that), people still
fail to distinguish between our ADT system and Linden's.  Only a new name
will fix that ambiguity.



Morgaine.




==========================


On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Robert G. Jakabosky
<bobby@sharedrealm.com>wrote:

> On Sunday 08, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
> > If that alone is too hard to comprehend, then your "designing for the
> > future" ignores complete backward compatibility and the many
> > implementations that already exist.
>
> -1
>
> Why should VWRAP keep backwards compatibility to anything when we haven't
> even
> published a standard yet.  The current LLSD spec is a draft and not set in
> stone.  Current LLSD implementations may have to change before this
> standardization process is finished.
>
> --
> Robert G. Jakabosky
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>