Search found 12 matches
- Sun Oct 05, 2014 8:31 pm
- Forum: Help Forum
- Topic: Mudlet + utf8?
- Replies: 7
- Views: 7937
Re: Mudlet + utf8?
as a side-note: Mushclient just implemented utf8 (from server), too and at avalon.mud.de we are interested in using it for pseudo-graphics (lines and icons).
- Sat Sep 21, 2013 7:50 am
- Forum: Mudlet Development
- Topic: Mac Retina users needed
- Replies: 12
- Views: 13582
Re: Mac Retina users needed
anything special you need us to test?
- Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:04 pm
- Forum: Mudlet Development
- Topic: General ATCP question: is there a limit to telnet neg length
- Replies: 9
- Views: 6326
General ATCP question: is there a limit to telnet neg length
Hello everybody, Zesstra@MG stumbled over the mudstandards.org documentation of ATCP. In http://mudstandards.org/ATCP_Message_Format it is stated that messages sent to the server may not exceed 2048 bytes. This doesn't make any sense. Texts sent via the ATCP composer message will very likely exceed ...
- Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:13 pm
- Forum: Help Forum
- Topic: Special characters
- Replies: 16
- Views: 14268
Re: Special characters
Oh joy! I've been trying to get client developers to think in the direction of auto-plugin-donwloads or generic GUI (maybe over an ATCP/GMPC standard)... We had made some progress on the Mushclient forums concerning the latter last year, but then the mudstandards.org-mess disrupted that development ...
- Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:11 pm
- Forum: Mudlet Development
- Topic: MXP
- Replies: 23
- Views: 21269
Re: MXP
But now you support ATCP, are you still planning to use the OOB MXP? I already do. The advantage is that ATCP still needs special parsing on the client-side (plugins!) and with MXP (MXP-OOB) I can write to the client-side stored MXP-variable. And CMUD can directly display a MXP gauge for that varia...
- Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:28 pm
- Forum: Mudlet Development
- Topic: MXP
- Replies: 23
- Views: 21269
Re: MXP
version 1.2 added out-of-band transport over telnet subchannels. Do any clients other than CMUD support that though? Not to my knowledge. It is still a fairly new addition and was added (on my request, btw) just before ATCP became widely accepted (on the client-front) an work on GMCP started. So no...
- Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:56 pm
- Forum: Mudlet Development
- Topic: MXP
- Replies: 23
- Views: 21269
Re: MXP
You'll find that Cmud implements yet a different dialect of MXP... I remember running into some compatibility problems a while back. Well, let's put rumours aside, because I think these issues have already been addressed in the past and are just rumour-residues now. There are always bugs, aren't th...
- Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:38 pm
- Forum: Mudlet Development
- Topic: MXP
- Replies: 23
- Views: 21269
Re: MXP
Hm, you can probably inquire with Zugg. Here are some quickly collected links (you need access to his developer forums - register with site->groups): New in 1.2 - subchannel communication: http://forums.zuggsoft.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=34260 New in 1.2 - <REPORT>: http://forums.zuggsoft.com/forum...
- Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:51 pm
- Forum: Mudlet Development
- Topic: MXP
- Replies: 23
- Views: 21269
Re: MXP
Note: KaVir mentioned the <SUPPORT> tag. Not all the MXP features can be disabled/enabled that way. Some features are compulsory per the standard. Obviously some implementations differ (which didn't help the mud servers adopt the standard). I try to get an indication of the compatible non-tag featur...
- Thu Nov 26, 2009 4:23 am
- Forum: Mudlet Development
- Topic: mudlet TTYPE policy
- Replies: 2
- Views: 3263
mudlet TTYPE policy
At the moment mudlet sends a TTYPE of "Mudlet 1.0". This is wonderful as it is the first client to encode the version into the TTYPE thus using it at is was intended. But I (and I guess must other muds) will need to adapt their client identification code, so it might be useful to publicly ...