View Single Post
Old 09-13-2010, 09:51 PM   #74
shadowfyr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 310
shadowfyr will become famous soon enough
Re: The mud client poll

It should be noted that the "problem" with proprietary is that you get people not fixing things, including their documentation on the protocols. Zugg and Gammon had some discussion on, specifically, "What is the *correct* behavior for tags that are not included/defined? Can you generate a client side error, which the script can catch, and treat it as invalid, or do you ignore it, and let it pass through, as though it was plain text?" Zugg agreed, apparently, that it wasn't clear, but I dare you to show any page out there that explains what the behavior should in fact be, even if its adding one single sentence to the specification, such as, "When a tag is detected that is not defined, z/cMud's behavior of allowing it to show as plain text is the proper response." Gammon took the text, as stated in the spec, literally, and concluded, "This is an error, so you could treat it as one, instead of showing the text." Personally, I never really agreed, it screws up too many muds, coded by people that either don't have MXP enabled on them, and use <<Room name>> or the like, (if you force it on), or where they just didn't bother to read the specification "as written", but instead simply assumed that, since it worked anyway, they statement in the spec that says its invalid is irrelevant. But, its like the difference between using "strict" HTML, and the horrid mess we have had up until recently, where clients "guessed" what the proper response was, so that "something" showed up, even if it was completely written *dead* wrong. lol

And, that isn't even mentioning the fun trying to translate most forms of scripting between clients. lol
shadowfyr is offline   Reply With Quote