Talk:LSL Protocol/Restrained Love Open Relay Group/who/002 draft

Is it intentional that you removed the statement traps that are automatically triggered by the victim should use the uuid of the victim instead of the person who has setup the trap, perhaps hours ago? That requirement seems reasonable and useful to me. In particular, it seems reasonable that a relay user (and hence a relay) may desire different behaviour if they stray too close to a trap that is set to autocapture, versus if a third party clicks a 'capture' button on the trap menu. Specifying the behaviour in the case of getting caught by a trap allows such a distinction to be made. Melancholy Lemon 14:22, 13 June 2011 (PDT)

To me sounds a bit oblique to use !x-who to that effect. However I acknowledge there is currently no other way to signify that the current command is sent by an automatic trap.

Maybe I can suggest adding a second optional argument to !x-who in the syntax:

          !x-who/<user key>[/<grab type>]

where <grab type> would tell more about the context, such as whether it was triggered by another user action, or by the avatar stumbling upon a prim or entering a zone, or sitting on something. So typically for a trap you'd have

          !x-who/<land owner key>/zone_entered

or

          !x-who/<key of some earlier visitor>/stumbled

It is clear we would need a list of cases that is more or less standardized.

Now I would be interested to know if some relays already were using the hint that the key was that of the relay wearer, how they were using it, and how one could use more detailed info.

Chloe, Dahlia? Any insight about this?

--Satomi Ahn 05:38, 14 June 2011 (PDT)

I suppose my thought was really just that the requirement has been in the spec for a long time, so it's possible people might be using it. It seems to me that it costs nothing to include the victim's uuid in the message, since there's nothing else that can really usefully be put in its place, and removing it constitutes an (admitedly small) incompatible change. For an established spec with deployed devices, I think it is better to try to avoid changes unless really needed. Also, the possible alternative approach of trying to specif the UUID of the person who set the trap doesn't really work, I think, because it's not well defined. Who is the person responsible? The person who last touched the controls? The person who most recently enabled auto-trap mode? Something else again?

Consider the following scenario. I encounter a device in a public place that is set to auto trap (perhaps I get trapped by it). I spend some time playing with it, at some point disabling auto trap mode, perhaps instead using a capture mode on someone else. Finally, when I'm done playing I take care to set the settings back as they were when I found it, including re-enabling auto-trap mode. Should I now be regarded as the person who set the trap? Should subsequent people who get trapped by the device now be told that *I* am trying to trap then? That wouldn't seem correct to me Melancholy Lemon 12:06, 16 June 2011 (PDT)