Re: HM.interactions: initial questions

[Niclas Olofsson <gurun@acc.umu.se>]

Mark Brownell wrote:
> From: Manos Batsis
> >Although SOAP and/or XML-RPC are very handy as "semi-protocols", I don't
> >really find a reason to focus on them while building our framework; They
> >are just a distributed computing "API". Essentially, it's just a way of
> >messaging. Shouldn't we be neutral towards these?

I agree with manos. Don't put to much meaning into the technology. After
all, it's just a piece of junk put together in a clever way. I respect
people that understand this, but on the other hand, I think XML would
have wanished a "long time ago" if it wasn't for all the people that
_didn't_ get it. Unpredicted usage can be very constructive :-)

> So the bottom line for this idea is to provide the information to a commonly
> used rendering machine. Has anyone provided a reasonable selection
> process that determines what will end up being rendered on the user's
> machine?

What do you suggest constitutes this selection process? We have had
discussions about approaches where HumanML could provide input to lower
level technologies and middleware (EMOTE, HAnim, etc). Myself I have a
very implementational approach to HumanML. HumanML, no matter how you
described it, must present a use case where the primary focus is to
render a noticable result back to the actors. If this will be a simple
"DOH" or a complex "HMM", I really couldn't say. 

My biggest problem with HumanML right now is that it refuses to fit into
any OOA method I know of :-)

Cheers,
/Niclas