Gammon Forum : MUSHclient : MXP and Pueblo : MXP Image

Register forum user name Search FAQ

Gammon Forum

Entire forum

MUSHclient

MXP and Pueblo

MXP Image

MXP Image

It is now over 60 days since the last post. This thread is closed. Refresh page

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Posted by

Shadowfyr USA (1,786 posts)

Date

Reply #45 on Wed 16 Jun 2004 10:06 PM (UTC)

Message

Not sure what good that would do Flannel. The idea is to avoid having to switch between them. In fact, I would use 'always-on-top' *and* set it so if you click on the map it automatically returns focus to Mushclient. That way you could even impliment the newer 'image map' function that zMud apparently supports in such an image. Click on it and it sends the coordinates, but immediately passes control for user input back to the client.

Posted by

Flannel USA (1,230 posts)

Date

Reply #46 on Wed 16 Jun 2004 10:12 PM (UTC)

Message

Its a smaller window, you wouldnt need to switch between them. It would pop up when it got something from the mud, and go away after it got something else.

At least, thats what I got out of it. Still, another application would work. Thats the important part.

~Flannel

Messiah of Rose
Eternity's Trials.

Clones are people two.

Posted by

Shadowfyr USA (1,786 posts)

Date

Reply #47 on Wed 16 Jun 2004 10:24 PM (UTC)

Message

What I meant it turning off the always-on-top does not change which window is 'on top', it only determines 'if' a window will appear over or under others. You could give it a command to force it to always be 'under' the others, but that is what the desktop uses, so the behaviour would be unpredictable. It is better to completely hide/unhide it as needed.

Posted by

Nick Gammon Australia (22,985 posts)

bio Forum Administrator

Date

Reply #48 on Wed 16 Jun 2004 11:16 PM (UTC)

Amended on Wed 16 Jun 2004 11:22 PM (UTC) by Nick Gammon

Message

Quote:

Eos:

Rude I was, and am, because I'm sick to death of beating this dead horse since day 1 of MXP being added to mushclient. Three years of seeing the samr argument is bound to make anyone begin to twitch.

The problem with MXP and its frames is that (to the extent that it works in zMUD, which I don't know) zMUD supports frames within the main window anyway, so it wasn't too hard to add it to the MXP spec (for him - Zugg, that is). Basically he added into MXP support for something his client already did.

However for me to support the MXP frames idea would be a major rewrite in MUSHclient.

It is interesting to see a similar discussion in the ZuggSoft forum. I quote in brief from a posting from Zugg here, I hope he doesn't mind ...

Quote:

Zugg:

Regarding images. Yes, unless you want to limit to zMUD users, you probably won't want to do images. Images are *very* hard to implement in a text-only client unless you have got a good design framework. I know, for example, that MUSHClient cannot display inline images and can only open them in a popup or external window.

Note he acknowledges that images are very hard to implement in a text-only client. When I designed MUSHclient it was intended as a text client. I don't know about the "good design framework" bit, I suppose if I had allowed for images earlier it would be easier to change now.

To give an analogy, when Photoshop was first released, it was designed to process graphics. For a long time its text support was pretty rudimentary (you typed text into a separate dialog box).

It's the same general idea. When I sat down to design a text MUD client, I don't expect to be supporting sound, inline images, web browsing etc.

With the benefit of hindsight, and newly released standards (things that didn't exist to my knowledge in 1995 when I started) like MCCP, MXP, MSP, scripting, and so on, I would design from scratch differently.

Look, I think the overland map idea is nice, and I was thinking if I ever did another client I would look at things like status bar panes, map panes, inventories, separate chat windows etc.

However backwards fitting stuff like that, and still supporting existing users (scripts etc.) can be a heck of a lot of work. You know that builders charge more to add a room to an existing house, than to build the same room in a new one? It is the same idea, you are working around existing infrastructure.

I am sorry MUSHclient doesn't meet your needs, Eos. The idea of shareware is to pay for it *after* you have found that it is what you want, so I presume you do not believe you have been misled in that respect.

I am starting to form the opinion that *no* client does what you want. I gather zMUD won't work for you? You also mentioned WRQ Reflection and Telemate, so it seems that none of them are quite right for you, or you wouldn't be posting here?

Quote:

Eos said earlier:

Now if mushclient could handle switching fonts/multiple fonts that would be a viable solution.

...

No. Fonts have nothing to do with this, regardless of what Flannel keeps insisting. A font is a single character in a single color, with a background color, which I already have and in no way shape or form is an improvement on what I have.

...

I want to be able to do that, with inline images, in my MUD.

I'm starting to see why I got so confused. First you say multiple fonts would be "a viable solution" and then when I attempted to confirm that giving you multiple fonts is what you want you reply that "fonts have nothing to do with this".

I'm sorry, you have lost me here. Fonts are a viable solution, but have nothing to do with it?

No wonder I can't get my head around what you want.

- Nick Gammon

www.gammon.com.au, www.mushclient.com

Posted by

Nick Gammon Australia (22,985 posts)

bio Forum Administrator

Date

Reply #49 on Wed 16 Jun 2004 11:40 PM (UTC)

Message

Quote:

Eos:

I hate ZMUD passionately, bug fact is, it's the only client right now that can show my MUDs overland maps in their nicest format.

I'm curious to know what is so wrong with zMUD? After all, Zugg says he has a "good design framework".

I'm pleased you prefer MUSHclient to zMUD, but have you considered that there is a danger that adding in these extra features introduces the very problems (whatever they are) that you have with zMUD in the first place?

- Nick Gammon

www.gammon.com.au, www.mushclient.com

Posted by

Shadowfyr USA (1,786 posts)

Date

Reply #50 on Wed 16 Jun 2004 11:57 PM (UTC)

Message

Probably the same thing that has always been wrong with zMud. A lot more bugs then we ever see here and being insanely slow. lol

In any case, I don't remember Eos saying fonts where a viable option. I may have commented on that, as did the person who originally suggested it could be, but Eos never did that I remember.

I tend to agree though. Eventually freezing this client once it has 99.9% of the features, then doing a complete redesign that does take into account the sorts of stuff that people are starting to use may be nice to see in the future. Especially before someone else beats you to it. lol Frankly I have been slightly tempted myself, then I broke out the C++ book, thumbed through the pages and thought, "bah... let someone else figure it out." ;)

Posted by

Nick Gammon Australia (22,985 posts)

bio Forum Administrator

Date

Reply #51 on Thu 17 Jun 2004 12:26 AM (UTC)

Message

Quote:

In any case, I don't remember Eos saying fonts where a viable option.

First message in page 2 of this thread.

- Nick Gammon

www.gammon.com.au, www.mushclient.com

Posted by

Nick Gammon Australia (22,985 posts)

bio Forum Administrator

Date

Reply #52 on Thu 17 Jun 2004 12:36 AM (UTC)

Message

Quote:

A lot more bugs then we ever see here and being insanely slow.

Perhaps the "good design framework" that permits inline images makes it slow?

- Nick Gammon

www.gammon.com.au, www.mushclient.com

Posted by

Eos USA (52 posts)

Date

Reply #53 on Thu 17 Jun 2004 02:30 AM (UTC)

Message

Quote:

I'm sorry, you have lost me here. Fonts are a viable solution, but have nothing to do with it?

It was viable. Until actually tested. Then it was just the same repulsive thing as it already was. At best its a poor compromise between what exists and what I want.

Regardless of intentions, mushclient does not support images. Will you remove/modify the support tags claim that it does, so that a server actually has some way of identifying this fact?

Responding +image/+img indicates support, not workarounds and servers should not need to be bandaided with checks like "if supports( images) && user->client != mushclient" before sending an image. (or in my case 300 images)

This is particularly important considering your links don't use the right syntax:
As per protocol specs:
A 20000: ( 4939) MXP element: <Image fname="test.bmp" url="http://www.auricmud.com/" align=bottom>
Output in MC comes out as:
[http://www.auricmud.com/]

Formatted against specs:
A 20000: ( 4940) MXP element: <Image fname="test.bmp" url="http://www.auricmud.com/test.bmp">
Output in MC comes out as:
[http://www.auricmud.com/test.bmp]

So mushclient agrees it can view images then displays nothing but a hyperlink to the root directory of the image.

Unless of course you add in another bandaid sending the URL in a different format specifically for MC.

(your own example from post: http://www.gammon.com.au/forum/bbshowpost.php?bbsubject_id=2424 comes out wrong if sent from the mud)

Posted by

Nick Gammon Australia (22,985 posts)

bio Forum Administrator

Date

Reply #54 on Thu 17 Jun 2004 02:56 AM (UTC)

Message

Ah OK, that sounds like a bug. Funny no-one noticed.

The spec says:

URL:

The URL of the path for the graphic if it should be downloaded on the fly.

For me the term URL means "the thing you type into your web browser" which in the case of a graphic usually includes its file name.

However the spec goes on to say "The classname is appended to the URL, along with the name of the graphics file itself.".

I missed that bit, and will fix it.

- Nick Gammon

www.gammon.com.au, www.mushclient.com

Posted by

Eos USA (52 posts)

Date

Reply #55 on Thu 17 Jun 2004 03:25 AM (UTC)

Message

Quote:
Funny no-one noticed.

Well for one thing I doubt anyone else is nearly as obsessive compulsive (or anal retentive, depending on view point) as I am about this particular feature. Or pretty much anything else.

Posted by

Flannel USA (1,230 posts)

Date

Reply #56 on Thu 17 Jun 2004 03:28 AM (UTC)

Message

Its not funny, it just demonstrates how few people (servers, whatever) use inline images. Since if anyone really did use it, it wouldve gotten picked up quickly, Im sure.

~Flannel

Messiah of Rose
Eternity's Trials.

Clones are people two.

Posted by

Eos USA (52 posts)

Date

Reply #57 on Thu 17 Jun 2004 03:54 AM (UTC)

Amended on Thu 17 Jun 2004 03:56 AM (UTC) by Eos

Message

Quote:
Since if anyone really did use it

And exactly how *would* anyone who wanted to use it have done so when the entire point of this thread is that only one client on the face of the earth supports it right now?

In order for supply and demand to function properly there has to be a supply to demand to, otherwise demand itself is an invalid reference point.

This ranks with telling the wright brothers how obvious it is noone wanted airplanes invented because noone had bought any before they were invented.

Posted by

Nick Gammon Australia (22,985 posts)

bio Forum Administrator

Date

Reply #58 on Thu 17 Jun 2004 04:30 AM (UTC)

Message

Quote:

Regardless of intentions, mushclient does not support images. Will you remove/modify the support tags claim that it does, so that a server actually has some way of identifying this fact?

Yes, I can take that out. It supports the <image> tag in the sense that it recognises it and does something (albeit buggy at the moment) with it, that the user can use to see the image.

I tested that on a PennMUSH implementation, I think, and indeed saw the local "map of the world", so they must have formatted the URL *with* the filename in it. Shows that not everyone reads the spec.

Sounds like your overland maps are going to be supported by exactly one client, zMUD, which you "hate passionately", still, that's life I suppose.

I have changed MUSHclient to not claim support for the <image> tag, and to append the fname argument, as you suggested. This will be in version 3.51.

- Nick Gammon

www.gammon.com.au, www.mushclient.com

Posted by

Nick Gammon Australia (22,985 posts)

bio Forum Administrator

Date

Reply #59 on Thu 17 Jun 2004 04:32 AM (UTC)

Message

BTW, I see from the MXP spec page the following:

Optional Tags

MSP Compatibility <SOUND> <MUSIC>
Using Entities <GAUGE> <STAT>
Frames <FRAME>
Cursor Control <DEST>
Cross-linking Multiple MUD Servers <RELOCATE> <USER>
<PASSWORD>
Images <IMAGE>
File Filters <FILTER>

So, MUSHclient's limited support for inline images is entirely consistent with the spec. It is optional.

- Nick Gammon

www.gammon.com.au, www.mushclient.com

The dates and times for posts above are shown in Universal Co-ordinated Time (UTC).

To show them in your local time you can join the forum, and then set the 'time correction' field in your profile to the number of hours difference between your location and UTC time.

210,932 views.

This is page 4, subject is 7 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

It is now over 60 days since the last post. This thread is closed. Refresh page

Go to topic: Search the forum

Quick links: MUSHclient. MUSHclient help. Forum shortcuts. Posting templates. Lua modules. Lua documentation.

Information and images on this site are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia License unless stated otherwise.

Comments to: Gammon Software support
Forum RSS feed ( https://gammon.com.au/rss/forum.xml )