|
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:
- To include the simple example described above.
- 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
|
