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
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to