Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario

[Mark Lentczner <[e-mail]>]

> Do you seriously think it's a good idea to specify all the minutiae  
> of how a server and client interact, as a standard protocol?
Yes.
Telnet, FTP, IMAP & 2822, HTTP & HTML, XMPP, to name a few past  
examples.

> Including how GUI is tied to local and remote capabilities, how a  
> scene graph is constructed and animated, how version patching is  
> done, how user control is forwarded, etc?
Yes insofar as the semantics of the capabilities are defined, but not  
the precise UI.  HTML & CSS specify quite a bit about the semantics of  
the presentation - and often dictate quite precise presentation.  But  
browsers are pretty free to create GUI as they see fit.
No to version patching. Updating the client is beyond the scope of the  
protocol.

> And all that work, just to be able to show up in world B instead of  
> world A?
Yes.

> What about objects you want to use cross worlds; are you saying you  
> also want to specify the exact runtime requirements for objects  
> (scripting language, physics interface, etc)?
Yes.
2822 & MIME, HTML & CSS & JavaScript, ODF to name a few past examples.

> I believe that the real enabler of interop is to be able to merge  
> the simulations of different worlds
Ah - here we disagree.  I think this is a non-starter for the vast  
majority of users and use cases. Whereas I think users really care  
about using a single client, and a single virtual identity to roam the  
wide-open spaces of the metaverse.

> So, if no users want to pay money for the convenience of not having  
> to install two separate clients, exactly why would any profit- 
> seeking company implement a second protocol in their client?
Is it just a convenience that you don't have to download and run a  
different browser-like client applications for your bank, for Netflix,  
for Wikipedia, and for Google? I am old-enough to remember an Internet  
where each of those would have been independent protocols, with  
independent clients. While I as a user consider the single, universal  
web browser of great value - and would pay for it (I own a retail copy  
of Netscape Navigator!) - every other segment of the computer industry  
benefits so greatly by this architecture, that the browser has become  
free.

Fundamentally - I think the scenario that Morgaine started this thread  
with points to an architecture that what many people want and  
satisfies many use cases.

	- Mark

Mark Lentczner
Sr. Systems Architect
Technology Integration
Linden Lab

[e-mail]

Zero Linden
[e-mail]