18 Mar, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 81st comment:
Votes: 0
I'm not sure how the concept of "number of worlds" is really any more valuable than the concept of "number of places". Yeah, sure, in your SW MUD you can visit 15 planets to sell your stuff on; my MUD lets you sail to 15 ports. Is there really a difference in the end of the day?
18 Mar, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 82nd comment:
Votes: 0
Also, with this whole MSSP-REQUEST thing, I strongly suggest that people planning to go with that to still use IAC SB MSSP MSSP_VAR "VARIABLE" MSSP_VAL "VALUE" IAC SE. It does not require a telnet handler to send that out.

This way you still follow most of the spec, and people wanting a quick hack can later decide to implement it properly using telnet. There's no real need to use ":" and "\r\n" since the MSSP output string doesn't use NUL bytes and should work with all MUDs.

This way there's generic crawler output and we avoid a big nasty mess of incompatibility. A lot of MUDs initialy implemented MCCP this way with a mccp command that would send IAC WILL MSSP IAC SB MSSP IAC SE and enable compression.
18 Mar, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 83rd comment:
Votes: 0
It is inconsistent to respond with subneg stuff to a non-subneg request.
Who knows, maybe one day the standard will be to use the plaintext approach… :wink:
There's no "big nasty mess" since the protocol is hardly in 'alpha' at this point.
18 Mar, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 84th comment:
Votes: 0
Starting to sound like a personal feud David.
18 Mar, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 85th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm not sure why it's personal to say that I think the plain-text approach is better, especially since I'm not the only one with that opinion. I will continue to hold that opinion unless you convince me otherwise, and when it matters, I'll defend that opinion as well since I would much rather see this protocol concept succeed than fizzle and die.
18 Mar, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 86th comment:
Votes: 0
I've offered a good compromise that is reasonable and should get things going.

Much preferable to people sitting around staring at each other plainly wondering what to do, or heading off to their own little communities to talk smack with their buddies and coming back from that ever so cocky.
18 Mar, 2009, tphegley wrote in the 87th comment:
Votes: 0
Personal opinions are like buttholes. Everyone's got em and they all stink.


I think you're reading too much into David's argument, Scandum. It isn't a personal attack rather just his opinion of what he finds more important. You both have differing opinions on that.

Scandum said:
Much preferable to people sitting around staring at each other plainly wondering what to do, or heading off to their own little communities to talk smack with their buddies and coming back from that ever so cocky.


You must be referring to the smaugmuds mssp topic. I don't think anyone is really talking smack there rather figuring out what to do with it and how to implement it. Yes, you have offered comparisons, but that's your opinion on how to do it. David just stated his own personal (strong) opinion of it as well.

What I would take from this Scandum is if you want this to be a public process then keep doing as your doing and develop it as you wish while no one else is writing their own. You put what you think is right and if David feels so inclined to help then he'll put in his work and then you two can collaborate more on this. I don't think we need (want?) TWO different types of support but if you can't agree together then might as well just have two that act near the same.

Maybe I'm rambling now…heh. I'm nowhere near advanced as you guys are but this is just my observation.
18 Mar, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 88th comment:
Votes: 0
tphegley said:
Scandum said:
Much preferable to people sitting around staring at each other plainly wondering what to do, or heading off to their own little communities to talk smack with their buddies and coming back from that ever so cocky.

You must be referring to the smaugmuds mssp topic.


I think he's actually talking about this:

http://lpmuds.net/forum/index.php?topic=...

Rather than sit around looking at…how'd that go? I decided to show what
plaintext MSSP looks like and ask LP folks what they thought.

Like David, I want this thing to succeed. I am beginning to wonder, considering
the intransigence of Scandum on a point there's overwhelming opinion against,
exactly what it is Scandum expects of a community effort.

To see how simple it can be, telnet to: dead-souls.net 8000
and type: MSSP-REQUEST

-Crat
18 Mar, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 89th comment:
Votes: 0
What, no response to my compromise?
18 Mar, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 90th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
What, no response to my compromise?


Please reiterate the compromise. I do not want to assume the wrong thing.

-Crat
18 Mar, 2009, tphegley wrote in the 91st comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
tphegley said:
Scandum said:
Much preferable to people sitting around staring at each other plainly wondering what to do, or heading off to their own little communities to talk smack with their buddies and coming back from that ever so cocky.

You must be referring to the smaugmuds mssp topic.


I think he's actually talking about this:

http://lpmuds.net/forum/index.php?topic=...

Rather than sit around looking at…how'd that go? I decided to show what
plaintext MSSP looks like and ask LP folks what they thought.

Like David, I want this thing to succeed. I am beginning to wonder, considering
the intransigence of Scandum on a point there's overwhelming opinion against,
exactly what it is Scandum expects of a community effort.

To see how simple it can be, telnet to: dead-souls.net 8000
and type: MSSP-REQUEST

-Crat


I, as well, think the Millenium Falcon has it where it counts. :grinning:

So I guess in my terms (newb), you're implementing the same thing (same idea?) Scandum has done but where it is more easily implemented and generic?
18 Mar, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 92nd comment:
Votes: 0
tphegley said:
So I guess in my terms (newb), you're implementing the same thing (same idea?) Scandum has done but where it is more easily implemented and generic?


In your terms, "yep".

-Crat
18 Mar, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 93rd comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
Scandum said:
What, no response to my compromise?


Please reiterate the compromise. I do not want to assume the wrong thing.

-Crat

To respond to MSSP-REQUEST with: IAC SB MSSP MSSP_VAR "VARIABLE" MSSP_VAL "VALUE" IAC SE

I don't like it one bit, but I can work with it. I don't think MUDs will particularly care what they send out, and crawlers have one generic interface for parsing the data. This way everybody wins.
18 Mar, 2009, tphegley wrote in the 94th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
In your terms, "yep".

-Crat

:smirk: heh.

Ok, so the same thing is being done with both Scandum's Version and your Version. If both variables from both versions are agreed upon and look exactly alike in their use, would only one crawler still be used or would the different versions have to be 'crawled' differently to get the same results?
18 Mar, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 95th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
Cratylus said:
Scandum said:
What, no response to my compromise?


Please reiterate the compromise. I do not want to assume the wrong thing.

-Crat

To respond to MSSP-REQUEST with: IAC SB MSSP MSSP_VAR "VARIABLE" MSSP_VAL "VALUE" IAC SE

I don't like it one bit, but I can work with it. I don't think MUDs will particularly care what they send out, and crawlers have one generic interface for parsing the data. This way everybody wins.


Well I'm not the boss of anyone, so it's not like I'm empowered to ratify this
treaty, but it sure sounds interesting. Are you saying that you're
willing to include a plaintext alternative in your canon if it uses the delimeters
you prefer?

-Crat
18 Mar, 2009, wrkq wrote in the 96th comment:
Votes: 0
He wants you to send the same telopts stuff he uses in response to plaintext request on login prompt.
18 Mar, 2009, Zeno wrote in the 97th comment:
Votes: 0
tphegley said:
Cratylus said:
In your terms, "yep".

-Crat

:smirk: heh.

Ok, so the same thing is being done with both Scandum's Version and your Version. If both variables from both versions are agreed upon and look exactly alike in their use, would only one crawler still be used or would the different versions have to be 'crawled' differently to get the same results?

The same thing is not being done. It's the same concept, but executed differently. A crawler is not going to be able to get both kinds one way. Yes, one crawler could probably get the data no matter how it gets requested, you would just need to make sure the crawler handles all cases.
18 Mar, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 98th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
Well I'm not the boss of anyone, so it's not like I'm empowered to ratify this
treaty, but it sure sounds interesting. Are you saying that you're
willing to include a plaintext alternative in your canon if it uses the delimeters
you prefer?

I'm willing to mention in the protocol that accepting MSSP-REQUEST\r\n can be used as an alternative to the server sending out IAC WILL MSSP and accepting IAC DO MSSP, and add Muds using that to my crawler. I guess Kiasyn would have to make up his own mind, since sending MSSP-REQUEST to non compliant muds can potentially be very annoying for muds that don't support it.

I'm unwilling to drop telnet, so yes, it'd be using telnet and string compliant delimeters.
18 Mar, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 99th comment:
Votes: 0
Hmmm. I'm finding some ambiguity in your response. In particular
the retention of the IAC stuff makes me unsure whether you intend
for the replies to be sent in the transparent manner of your
prior telopt preference or in the visible-output manner of the
plaintext MSSP I've proposed.

If what you're saying is that you'll accept a solution that
does half telopt, then I'm not sure you've quite registered the
overwhelming opinion against telopt for this articulated
here and elsewhere.

Please clarify whether you mean you'll accept this stuff
just printed to the screen, without the use of telopt,
as well as a non-telopt request for it.

-Crat
18 Mar, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 100th comment:
Votes: 0
80.0/292