Re: [mmox] Learning from the past; focusing on the future

I have a nice solution to this one, take OGP and build on it :)
Add the following:
1 bowl of transport mediums
1 cup of object position update messages
1 cup of geometrical definitions
Mix 2 cups until a clean set of messages is defined
Skim away SL limits, mix in and retain the basics (i.e web services,
agent/region domains split, HTTP capabilities over https:// URLs)
Bake for 50 minutes at 1337c and serve with a side portion of win

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com> wrote:
> Morgaine wrote:
>>
>> I can't understand why you continue to raise the spectre that we're here
>> to rubberstamp SL standards.  We aren't.  I'm not aware of anybody with that
>> agenda.
>>
>
> Because there are several people on this list who say "OpenSim and Second
> Life are already trying to do client interoperability; I think we should run
> with it and not worry about something bigger."
> Similarly, I find that the current OGP proposal specifies some thing
> ("Rezzing" of avatars) that are Second Life centric, while not specifying
> other things that would be necessary for an actually useful interoperable
> virtual world (like entity telemetry).
>
> Similarly, if OGP is specified as a mostly empty vessel that can contain
> arbitrary negotiated data, what would probably happen would be that OpenSim
> puts OpenSim data in that vessel, and IMVU puts IMVU data in that vessel,
> and both claim to support "OGP interoperability" but you can't do anything
> useful through that claim. I want to avoid that outcome.
>>
>> We are working in good faith towards your item 2), while noting that item
>> 2) means interop with "all" reasonable worlds, and that includes Linden
>> worlds.  It's not either/or, it's both.  Please grant us that, so that we
>> can actually make headway.
>>
>> /(Proviso: your item 2) says /*single ... simulation*/, which is
>> incorrect, as we have no remit to straightjacket diverse worlds into a
>> single simulation.)/
>
> What I mean by "single simulation" is what the user sees when connected to a
> specific, interoperating instance. I suppose the user could be connected to
> multiple of those, similar to opening multiple video streams in a media
> player, but then those generally have "nothing" to do with each other.
>
>
> Okay, so if most of us agree on 2), can we just say we have "rough
> consensus" on that, and politely reject any attempt to steer the work
> towards 1)?
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> jw
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> mmox@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>