[sldev] Client detection and official viewer signatures.

[Tigro Spottystripes]

instead of stuff being sent during login, it probably woul dbe better if
the client simply replaied to script questions about what features it
got, or even if it got an specific feature

Kakurady Drakenar escreveu:
> While detecting viewer brand and version is nice and useful (as everyone 
> else have pointed out in this thread), I think viewer *feature* 
> detection should be avaliable to other clients/scripts so people would 
> prefer it over detecting brand where possible. Otherwise, this might 
> lead up to clients/content triggering functions on and off based on 
> viewer brand... last time it happened, it led to MSIE branding itself as 
> "Mozilla". I don't want to see that happen again.
>
> Currently client capabilities are sent during login but that's only used 
> by the server, and it's only concerned about protocol-level functions...
>
> In addition I would like to see vendor-specific function declarations, 
> in the spirit of Cascade Style Sheet rules "-moz-*" or "-webkit-*". This 
> is so new and experimental functions (like multiple attachments per 
> point) that don't involve protocol changes won't need to wait for 
> official sanction to be widespread. But on the other hand (or paw), this 
> might lead to each login sending a crazy long list of capabilities, in 
> the style of OpenGL extension strings. They are so long, they make some 
> apps crash.
>
> Kakurady
>
> 于 2009/10/17 18:34, SnowFox102 写道:
>   
>> He didn't say it breaks content, he said it breaks compatibility - that
>> is, Emerald has a lot of (desirable) features that the LL viewer
>> doesn't. But your average Ruth doesn't know that, so they may buy a
>> product and want to mod it to do something their friend on Emerald has
>> it doing, only to find that they can't do it because they're not using
>> Emerald. I think he means that standardizing viewer tags would be
>> helpful for us merchants, because then we can track down such
>> incompatibility issues much easier. The average user may not know what
>> viewer they're using, or know how to tell the merchant. Being able to
>> detect it on our own would save a lot of time and energy.
>>
>> Also, with the exception of RLV content, I don't know of anyone that
>> makes content that requires a specific viewer, but with LL viewers'
>> approval rating constantly falling and third party viewers adding
>> features asked of the Lindens months ago, it wouldn't surprise me to
>> start seeing a few products bearing "Requires X Viewer to function",
>> since more and more people are using those viewers anyway. If/when that
>> day comes, viewer tags would help there too.
>>
>> Maya
>>
>> Tigro Spottystripes wrote:
>>    
>>     
>>> Stickman, have you talked with the Emerald people about the content
>>> breaking features you mentioned?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
>> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/SLDev
>> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
>>    
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/SLDev
> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges