Talk:LSL Protocol/Restrained Love Open Relay Group/ack: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Created page with 'As written, this command violates the requirements listed in the ORG requirements page for every command to be either "ok"ed or "ko"ed. I certainly see the value in this, but eit...' |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
As written, this command violates the requirements listed in the ORG requirements page for every command to be either "ok"ed or "ko"ed. I certainly see the value in this, but either the requirements need to be changed or this command cannot work. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 15:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | As written, this command violates the requirements listed in the ORG requirements page for every command to be either "ok"ed or "ko"ed. I certainly see the value in this, but either the requirements need to be changed or this command cannot work. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 15:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
It is not clear whether this command is intended to apply to the relay as a whole or only to the commands from the object sending the ''!x-ack'' I would assume it is the latter, but would like to see that clarified. I'd be opposed to the global interpretation since one toy could affect the way others work. Note, this comment is motivated from the multiple-controlling object point of view. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 15:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:52, 5 August 2010
As written, this command violates the requirements listed in the ORG requirements page for every command to be either "ok"ed or "ko"ed. I certainly see the value in this, but either the requirements need to be changed or this command cannot work. --Chloe1982 Constantine 15:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It is not clear whether this command is intended to apply to the relay as a whole or only to the commands from the object sending the !x-ack I would assume it is the latter, but would like to see that clarified. I'd be opposed to the global interpretation since one toy could affect the way others work. Note, this comment is motivated from the multiple-controlling object point of view. --Chloe1982 Constantine 15:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)