[ogpx] verbiage : client, server, user agent, etc.
Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com> Mon, 29 March 2010 17:35 UTC
Return-Path: <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A0983A6ACA for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:35:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.122
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.122 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.009, BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qi2Rg0iZPzCB for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com (qw-out-2122.google.com [74.125.92.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07CCE3A6B23 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 9so324963qwb.31 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:from:date:received :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=qtEvoWs5ezydQwmcN0ySb0ei5WTR8XuNR7fOw3zNRIw=; b=ZvoXv6OgxfPzMptkgkTwuR2UDHVNiqFKkYn9gNSouYS6lZ3vzHwodkAT215byXE15E C5deUu8O+KGQ1toSCw5EpykXQXRv1MteHQxjKyBYiBiHyzMM24tuDhlrW3Oz4gUg6Gmn 3NaDk/KgYGDp5Bky089rc1xB3KKrDxSjRYtMY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=Qj5VlltXikm/5lzsGc2psSU4d0fOSnbj3T1+OlgZIhtjc45CRndYG95wo2zgnPPWk5 B1xeeYei0HS3QCRzcmhxdtauMm98s5of1kj0IIl9YRBRy42v3ltsCdUg+XDl9M2dL7MH vto2jL53K9OKeBCHWUnTIoa/tPTfCcLjU8g18=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.20.209 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:35:43 -0700
Received: by 10.229.219.203 with SMTP id hv11mr2582485qcb.46.1269884163158; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <b325928b1003291035k6ddc7df5lbf3b8afb39cd1dcf@mail.gmail.com>
To: ogpx <ogpx@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: [ogpx] verbiage : client, server, user agent, etc.
X-BeenThere: ogpx@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <ogpx.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx>
List-Post: <mailto:ogpx@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:35:41 -0000
okay. here's another one for the verbiage file: we've been using the terms "client" and "client application" and "user agent" and "viewer" almost interchangeably. there was at least one request at the f2f to tighten up the terminology a bit. peeps without direct Second Life (tm) experience may not be familiar with the term "viewer." it is used to describe the software that runs on an end user's machine and renders the virtual world. a "viewer" is to "virtual world" what "browser" is to "the web" (to a first order approximation.) in the Second Life (tm) economy, there are multiple viewers. some developed and deployed by linden lab, others are independent implementations. still others are modifications of the open source viewer released by linden lab. the term "client application" was sometimes used in the pre-IETF Second Life (tm) interop community to refer to software like a viewer or utility application that exercised the OGP protocol for the benefit of an end user. client applications were mainly thought to include viewers, but also a growing collection of tools that served administrative or non-interactive functions (like second inventory, bot control programs, etc.) then we get to the terms "client" and "server" which have specific meaning in TCP and HTTP. a "client" is a process or host that initiates a request or connection while a "server" is the process or host that responds to the request. "user agent" is used by both the accessibility community and by SMTP with very specific meanings. so... one question... do we want to deprecate the term "client application" in favor of "user agent"? it seems that they mean the same thing. or maybe we could say that a "client application" is a user agent that renders the virtual world for an agent. or vice versa. questions? comments? -- meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve" @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * OhMeadhbh@gmail.com
- [ogpx] verbiage : client, server, user agent, etc. Meadhbh Hamrick