Just wondering if there's any reason to try to update MUSHclient to have a version of MXP newer than 0.5? I see that in version 1.0 they apparently added a 'default' mode, changed the way frames are handled (including removing the 'parent' attribute), and... no clue what else. My server is reporting people with new cMud as using MXP 1.2 and MUSHclient as 0.5 and one of the other immortals was wondering about possible differences and so forth.
MXP version update?
Posted by Tiopon on Tue 17 May 2011 06:43 PM — 8 posts, 42,866 views.
I don't know if this is related, but last I remember Zugg/zMUD (CMUD too maybe) didn't actually follow their own (MXP's) specifications.
Related thread here:
http://www.gammon.com.au/forum/bbshowpost.php?bbsubject_id=6247
Related thread here:
http://www.gammon.com.au/forum/bbshowpost.php?bbsubject_id=6247
<sarcasm> Awesome. </sarcasm>
Yeah, I know that zuggsoft has had some consistency issues with the specs that they create. I wasn't sure if this was a case where their further development was basically waving a finger at the specs and telling them to knot themselves, or if it actually added useful features. If the MXP of MUSHclient is the last one that actually followed specifications...
Yeah, I know that zuggsoft has had some consistency issues with the specs that they create. I wasn't sure if this was a case where their further development was basically waving a finger at the specs and telling them to knot themselves, or if it actually added useful features. If the MXP of MUSHclient is the last one that actually followed specifications...
Tiopon said:
<sarcasm> Awesome. </sarcasm>
<sarcasm> Awesome. </sarcasm>
Hey, those are invalid tags, they should be invisible. =_=
:)
I doubt if he is making major changes because he has frozen development on zMUD, which quite a few people still use, I believe (possibly because of problems converting their scripts over).
MUSHclient doesn't even handle the "frames" part of MXP - I thought at the time it wasn't consistent with the way I implemented text drawing.
Another possibility to consider (and this is what Achaea - and other IRE games - and Aardwolf are doing) is to use the GMCP protocol to send down extra stuff, and have plugins capture that and do something useful with it (like in miniwindows). That's a bit more flexible in many ways, and I'm pretty sure cMUD supports GMCP (don't know about zMUD).
MUSHclient doesn't even handle the "frames" part of MXP - I thought at the time it wasn't consistent with the way I implemented text drawing.
Another possibility to consider (and this is what Achaea - and other IRE games - and Aardwolf are doing) is to use the GMCP protocol to send down extra stuff, and have plugins capture that and do something useful with it (like in miniwindows). That's a bit more flexible in many ways, and I'm pretty sure cMUD supports GMCP (don't know about zMUD).
Ah. Yeah, zMud stopped at MXP 1.0 and CMUD uses MXP 1.2 instead. KaVir's protocol snippet includes finding out what client the end user is using as well as what functions it has...
Personally I only use MXP for clickable links. The 24-bit colour could also be useful, although I've found 256 are more than enough for my own needs.
The snippet you added doesn't support GMCP, but it does support MSDP and ATCP, and they can all be used for the same sort of thing. You can actually create much nicer-looking interfaces this way - the only advantage of using MXP instead is that it works out of the box; the player doesn't need to manually download and install a plugin.
The snippet you added doesn't support GMCP, but it does support MSDP and ATCP, and they can all be used for the same sort of thing. You can actually create much nicer-looking interfaces this way - the only advantage of using MXP instead is that it works out of the box; the player doesn't need to manually download and install a plugin.