Re: [mmox] Cryengine 2 screenshots from Extropia

[Gareth Nelson <[e-mail]>]

Which is why that needs sorting out - can someone with the correct
access please update that page?

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Hurliman, John <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>Infinity Linden
>>Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:50 AM
>>To: Gareth Nelson
>>Cc: [e-mail]; Jon Watte; William George
>>Subject: Re: [mmox] Cryengine 2 screenshots from Extropia
>>
>>yup. that's what i'm hoping.
>>
>>personally... i'm thinking rendering issues are sorta out of scope.
>>
>>but that last statement comes with the big "HOWEVER"... we totally DO
>>NOT want to specify a wire protocol that makes any kind of rendering
>>difficult. and it's a popular thing for protocol designers to make
>>assumptions about what participants are going to do with the protocol
>>they consume.
>>
>>which is probably why there's such talk of people saying... "oh! we
>>should support meshes!" and "oh! we should support NURBS!" and ...
>>
>>-cheers
>>
>
> It could also mean that some people are confused about the scope of the MMOX work or the roadmap to complete the scope. If someone didn't know better and simply visited the MmoxCharter page at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/MmoxCharter and saw "February 2010 Progression of OGP Virtual World Primitive Object Format to Proposed Standard" on the roadmap, they might think that defining a transport format for 3D virtual world content was on topic.
>
> John
>