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.
|