All the way down...
On 11.04.18 18:15, Robert Sparks wrote: > >> >> Similarly, the use of the word standardized naked like that is >> probably unhelpful. > Can I infer you plan to edit it out or dress it more? Yes. >> One could imagine, for instance, Fairhair or some other consortium >> deciding to create standard classes. >> >> What I propose is two changes to facilitate better understanding: >> >> 1. To include the simple example described above. >> 2. To add an optional "documentation" element in the "mud" >> container that consists of a URL that points to documents for >> each class, when so used. >> > Sure. >> >> Thoughts? >> > With this, I'm puzzled about the use of the word standardized at all. > I think I'm hearing that you expect MUD controllers to know about some > well-known classes by convention and that groups like fairhair or > someone else might make a list of classes that MUD controllers might > collectively decide to build in knowledge of. Am I getting closer to > the right picture? (This is opposed to a set of classes that are > created by a standards action and listed in a registry somewhere). The class is just a name that expands out to a bunch of IP addresses. It happens to take the form of a URI, but it's really just a name. There could be well known NAMES, and indeed we create a URN registry just for that purpose. Maybe I need to be a bit more clearer on that point? Eliot
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
