On 4/11/18 11:58 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
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?
Probably good to do? I hope I'm not just being too thick-headed here.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
