[DGD]New mudlibs

[Ludger Merkens]

On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Stephen Schmidt wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Tim Vernum wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> In theory, I completely agree.
> 
> In practice:
> 
> 3) Creating a mudlib that would use both interfaces
> seamlessly is surely a much more difficult task than
> creating one that uses only HTML. Might it not be
> better to have a good mudlib soon, rather than a
> great mudlib farther in the future?

Actually not, unless you expect your wizards to be html gurus
also. Otherwise you have to provide some way to generate the html output
from some meaningfull function calls. In effect you separate content and
layout. But if you are that far, it's easy to generate XML instead of HTML
and provide e.g. some XSLT stylesheets to render to either pure ASCII,
ASCII + escape, or HTML. If you do XSLT serverside, you might want to
adopt the rendering process approach mentioned a message or two before, to
get better scalability, but this is not necessary for a first proof of
concept.

With the new dgd extension interface, it should be possible to create the
glue for an already existing XSLT engine. So no need to do this in lpc
again.

Ludger 


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