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

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Dzonatas Sol <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Morgaine, please provide exact text here in the list of what you want
> updated.



That's what we're working on right now.  I don't have exact text, we're
working out the details first on the list, and once we have those worked
out, and we see a consensus forming, then we can start writing an updated
document ready for the next draft.



> There are already enough motion to keep scalar data as scalar.
>


I don't know what that means.


>
> 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.



We are not designing for backwards compatibility, and there are no
implementations of any VWRAP protocol yet, not even of VWRAP's ADT system
which is currently still being defined.  You're confusing two different
"LLSD".

The LLSD that is in current use in Second Life and in OpenSimulator is not
the ADT system that we are creating for VWRAP --- there is just a
coincidence of names currently, because Linden's LLSD was used as the
starting point for our work.  That name needs to change to avoid the
confusion that you've just demonstrated.  Meadhbh has renamed her ADT system
to "DSD", but if her system is not amenable to change for the purposes of
VWRAP then we can't use that name either.

Nothing that we do here is going to affect the LLSD that is employed by
Linden Lab, and Opensim will almost certainly continue to use that same LLSD
for compatibility with SL.  We don't have the power to alter their LLSD,
even if we wanted to (which we don't).  This has been explained here many
times already.

The above probably highlights the urgency with which we need to adopt a
different name for VWRAP's ADT system.



> My last post is only on topic of the IETF interest even if merely stated in
> the obvious truths, just not in words you could twist so easily.
>


 I don't know what that means.


> We only need simple agreement/disagreements, not staged assignments.
> Because of that alone, I can't take you seriously on any scale, even when
> the scope is pushed completely to the limits.
>
>
 I don't know what that means.



> Please, just provide your draft-adt-00... so we can focus on consensus and
> scale.
>
>
I don't know what you mean by "scale" here.  Regarding the draft, we're
still working out what the next draft of our ADT system should contain.
Your help would be appreciated, but if you aren't interested in improving
the ADT system for VWRAP then at least please don't block us from working on
it.


Morgaine.




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


On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Dzonatas Sol <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Morgaine, please provide exact text here in the list of what you want
> updated. There are already enough motion to keep scalar data as scalar.
>
> 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. My last post is only on topic of the IETF interest even
> if merely stated in the obvious truths, just not in words you could twist so
> easily.
>
> We only need simple agreement/disagreements, not staged assignments.
> Because of that alone, I can't take you seriously on any scale, even when
> the scope is pushed completely to the limits.
>
> Please, just provide your draft-adt-00... so we can focus on consensus and
> scale.
>
>
> --
> --- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
> Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>