Yeah, but I don’t really see the point implementing something which is not even defined. At least not after I briefly glanced over the discussion and some web resources. Should I implement Ironrealms or Aardwolfs variant? BTW: IRE’s Comm.Channel.Start and Comm.Channel.End is a bad joke, right?
Mudlet supports either variant. They’re the same, just how they handle the data part is different – which doesn’t matter as the games themselves are different anyway, so people only play either.
Heh, yeah, that thing is dumb (sticking something from out of band into the band…) and doesn’t work with Mudlet either, nor do we have plans to ‘make’ it work. It’s purely an implementation detail of their Nexus java client and how did that get into the protocol, I’m not sure. Oh well!
I will give it some thought, but this “very subject to change” does not motivate me too much at the moment…
So, that means, the modules and their versions – with exception of Core? – are always completely individual for a specific MUD (Module Char V1 from IRE vs. Char V1 from Aardwolf)? Confusing (at least without information in the spec), I would have preferred to distinguish the module name in that case.
Ok… For example, I would actually like if the server responds with the list of enabled modules to the clients requested modules. Just because the server may not support all requested modules in the the requested version and then the client gets to know which are actually active. So, I guess, I would just define that like this then.