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

[Jon Watte <[e-mail]>]

Mystical Demina wrote:
>
> I think until we define things in these terms the actual physical 
> protocols don’t do us much good.
>

There have actually been a lot of those proposals on the list already. 
The reason we're talking about meshes vs prims is to make the point that 
/only/ specifying the mechanism is not sufficient to actually achieve 
interoperability; specifying a reliable minimum capability for each 
mechanism ("if you support the mechanism, you support at least this 
format") is necessary for actual interoperability. Meshes just turned 
out to be one of the illustrative examples of why this is so.

I think the /first/ thing we need to decide is whether we're building:

1) A protocol that lets some number of second-life derived client 
softwares cross-connect to some number of second-life derived services, 
possibly bringing along some number of second-life derived assets (I've 
heard proposals that boil down to this from a few people)

or

2) A protocol that lets significantly different virutal world systems 
interoperate to share in creating a single, bigger, more diverse 
simulation (Some other people, including me, are presenting proposals 
along these lines).

However, right now, I don't even think we know how to make that 
decision. We need to make this decision, so that the people who aren't 
interested in "the other" approach can properly decide where and how to 
spend time and resources.

Sincerely,

jw


Sincerely,

jw