Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Manitas · 08-26-2011, 04:10 PM

Sure, attempts are made even though the standard is not yet established. Both are work in progress with some basic features.
It's quite normal for WIP to have issues, but there are no fundamental differences between normal websites and normal websites using websockets, so they can be made accessible if accessibility is one of design goals.

They are quite out of scope of this discussion, Decaf is client only, both rely on telnet and mud protocols and both clients are terminal emulators. Phud is an example of what i'm proposing not to do (in addition, it's written in PHP which is a bad choice imo).

08-26-2011, 04:10 PM	#22
Manitas New Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 10	Re: Need for a new MUD engine? Sure, attempts are made even though the standard is not yet established. Both are work in progress with some basic features. It's quite normal for WIP to have issues, but there are no fundamental differences between normal websites and normal websites using websockets, so they can be made accessible if accessibility is one of design goals. They are quite out of scope of this discussion, Decaf is client only, both rely on telnet and mud protocols and both clients are terminal emulators. Phud is an example of what i'm proposing not to do (in addition, it's written in PHP which is a bad choice imo).