Re: [mmox] Use cases?

well... yes and no... use cases are important. but to prevent feature  
creep having a charter + a concrete proposal is always convenient. our  
charter is under discussion and is therefore at least "plastic" if not  
"fluid."

but yes. if i had it to do over, i would have published as much of OGP  
as we currently have defined along with LLSD as it's the application  
level that ultimately will be more interesting.

-cheers
-meadhbh

On Feb 26, 2009, at 4:41 PM, Jon Watte wrote:

> I posted five use cases that I think cover a fair range of virtual  
> world interoperability. I've gotten several nice replies in the  
> mail, but on the list they seem to have soared like a lead balloon,  
> as opposed to all talk about XML vs binary vs IP property rights.  
> Surely, agreeing on requirements (such as use cases) is actually  
> more important than discussing implementation details that we don't  
> even know will apply yet?
>
> Any opinions, for or against, regarding these use cases? Silent  
> assent?
>
> http://www.interopworld.org/mmox-use-cases
>
> Sincerely,
>
> jw
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> mmox@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox