[Avasyu]

With the combined help of Mike Potter of Zuggsoft, Nick Gammon of MUSHClient, Heiko Koehn and Vadi of Mudlet, Lasher of Aardwolf, and Tomas Mecir of Iron Realms, we have begun work on a centralized location to collaborate on existing MUD protocols, proposed enhancements, and new protocol creations.

You can check it out here:

MudStandards.org

We are currently using a wiki format to document this data, and a forum to discuss how to improve documentation and the protocols in an effort to improve knowledge, implementation, examples, and in the end, the player experience. This is a work in progress that so things are still getting into place, but we really hope it will take off.

If you are interested in assisting with this endeavor you can register for the forums here:

MudStandards.org Forum

However! For the time being we are only accepting people who have MUD development experience of some type (coding, clients, owners, etc). If you fall into that category and would like to participate, just register for the forum and shoot me an email at jeremy@mudstandards.org.

This is not an IRE project, nor do I want it to be. I feel strongly that even though we are a group that competes against each other for ‘clients’, we all benefit from collaborating on projects like this, sharing our knowledge, and increasing the player experience on all our games through group effort.

One more thing of note, and although it is not documented well yet, Iron Realms Entertainment has decided to make ATCP an open format that anyone can use for their games. As it is supported by all the major clients, it is something that could be added to your games at any time.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here, or shoot me an email at jeremy@mustandards.org.

[ShadowsDawn]

Okay, this... yeah, this right here is fabulous. Thank you guys! So many of these things are potentially valuable things for a MUD owner to consider for their game. And then to have something that helps layout the specifications.. yeah, this is going to be a grand resource.

[Soludra]

I agree! This will be fantastic. I think MUDs have been rather anarchic for a long, long time; having a standards group like this will be a huge step. Not that a little anarchy is a bad thing! But MUDs will still have plenty of room for divergence.

I'm also really impressed that they have pretty much all of the big-name client developers involved. This gives them a lot of weight, because MUD clients are the gateway into a MUD.

[noodles]

Regarding the forums. MUD development has always been a niche area. I am not sure how it makes sense to limit access and participation in something that may affect the whole community to the elite few. I say this with tongue in cheek, good luck with your circle jerk

However the documentation of existing protocols is a good thing. Before this web site, finding coherent documentation of the protocols involved scouring a wide range of web sites.

[MudMann]

All we need now is a plugin for CMUD to import / export the mapping XML data.. and jobs a good one... assuming CMUD doesnt already do that (I only upgrade my ZMUD finally yesterday after getting back into MUD gaming)

[Brody]

Avasyu, I hope you don't mind, but I copied your post over in the Text Adventures blog: MUDStandards.org forms « Text Adventures Online

[Avasyu]

Originally Posted by noodles Regarding the forums. MUD development has always been a niche area. I am not sure how it makes sense to limit access and participation in something that may affect the whole community to the elite few. I saw this with tongue in cheek, good luck with your circle jerk However the documentation of existing protocols is a good thing. Before this web site, finding coherent documentation of the protocols involved scouring a wide range of web sites.

Yeah, we currently are debating changing this.

[Avasyu]

Originally Posted by Brody Avasyu, I hope you don't mind, but I copied your post over in the Text Adventures blog: MUDStandards.org forms « Text Adventures Online

Nope, sounds good. Thanks!

[ArchPrime]

This is a very interesting project! I look forward to seeing what comes from it.

As a long-time protocol geek who once had the OSI Model jammed down his throat, I feel there is some misuse of terminology and some misinformation in the opening portion of the MXP Spec page:

MXP Specification - MudStandards

For example, I am guessing you mean HTTP and not HTML. If you really mean HTML, err....

Additionally, "Raw Telnet" might better be termed as "raw TCP" or perhaps "raw TCP/IP". "Raw Telnet" has always struck me as a funny term. Its like saying "Raw HTTP" or "Raw Gopher".

Also, of the application layer protocols listed on the page, I think only FTP might be construed to "enhance" Telnet (The FTP RFC Specifically discusses the relationship between the telnet protocol and FTP). However, SMTP and HTTP neither enhance Telnet, nor rely upon it.

Apologies up front if I am knit-picking. Plus, I realize this is a new effort and I imagine most folks reading these boards might not care about such technicalities. Take the above with a grain of salt. ;-)

On a side note, people interested in making suggestions to the Mud Standards folks might want to take a gander at the wikipedia article: Telnet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
as it might assist them in better understanding what Telnet is and how it can be 'enhanced' through its negotiation features.

[Avasyu]

Couple changes folks. We have made the entire board read only, so all interested parties can read, and some general boards for registered users to contribute on.

Thanks for the support so far guys.

[noodles]

Nice one bro.

[Avasyu]

Originally Posted by ArchPrime Apologies up front if I am knit-picking. Plus, I realize this is a new effort and I imagine most folks reading these boards might not care about such technicalities. Take the above with a grain of salt. ;-)

Dude, nitpick away. We need more nitpickers for this kinda thing. It sounds like you should be helping out the project!