[DGD]New mudlibs

[Tim Vernum]

>On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, John West McKenna wrote:
>> I see this as orthogonal to the others. 
>
>I concur. There would be a lot of value to creating a mudlib
>that didn't do anything different than 2.4.5, but was purely
>HTML based, 

There is (IMNSHO) little value is creating a mudlib that is
 purely HTML based.
That is just as bad as creating one that is purely telnet
 based.
The mudlib should not care what technology the clients are
 using. It should perform object interaction, generate 
 outcomes are provide output in some form of markup (XML
 perhaps).

Then you provide a "client_renderer" object on the DGD side
 that converts the internal markup into a format that users
 can handler.
Pure text for the telnet users
ANSI coloured text for the users with capable terminals,
HTML(*) for the web users,
Something else(**) for the Pueblo users.

That means you can also use MudML when someone develops it,
 without having to re-write the mudlib.
The biggest problem with moving existing mudlibs to a web 
 interface is that EVERYTHING assumes a text only output.
Don't make the same mistake and assume an HTML only output.

.Tim.

(*) Well probably not, since you really need push.
(**) I can't recall what Pueblo used exactly. Some form of SGML IIRC.

--
  [ Tim Vernum ~~~ tpv at acay_com_au ]
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. 
We have guided missiles and misguided men"  - Martin Luther King, Jr.  

List config page:  http://list.imaginary.com/mailman/listinfo/dgd