Okay, so which one of these is the Lab thinking about, then? That'll settle a lot of debate right there.
On 20/02/2010 2:00 PM, Argent Stonecutter wrote: > On 2010-02-19, at 01:16, Ricky wrote: > > >> I suspect that there are two things being discussed here without >> distinction: Client scripting, and client extensions. Confusing the >> two is easy. >> >> Client-side scripting SHOULD be sandboxed, and in a controlled set >> of languages. For a close example think of javascript in web >> browsers. >> >> Client extensions, or alternatively named as "plugins", would be >> modules that can be plugged in and out of the client and run /as if/ >> they were a part of the client. Think of browser add-ons/plugins/ >> extensions. >> >> Client side scripts could (read might be, could possibly, needs >> further thought, etc.) be given permission to be loaded in by worn >> items automatically. Other objects would likely need to request >> permission via a security warning. >> >> Client extensions would have to be downloaded and installed >> externally; not delivered in-world. These would truly be programs >> on your computer, and should be treated as such. >> >> Just my thoughts hoping for a clearer discussion. >> > A very good summary. Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges > > -- Tateru Nino http://dwellonit.taterunino.net/ _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
