Re: [ogpx] OGPX WG draft charter, 2009-08-19 revision

but upon reflection, we should take landmarks as a use case and work
backwards to ensure the things we're doing don't preclude landmarks
being defined.

i'm still a little on the fence about whether we need to say "each
region should be individually addressable with a unique URL" in the
charter. it would go a long way to make sure that cross-world
landmarks could be implemented and i think we should say it, i just
don't know if it needs to go in the charter. (the charter which is
supposed to be a definition of the problem domain, not the solution
domain.)

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Joshua Bell<josh@lindenlab.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 01:50:51AM +0200, Carlo Wood wrote:
>> > As a result, an agent domain shouldn't care less where someone
>> > wants to go, because they are never responsible, and therefore
>> > it should NOT be a matter of policy where someone can or cannot
>> > teleport while keeping their inventory: it should simply be
>> > possible, because the address is given in the LandMark.
>>
>> What I guess is my main point, is that I think that we can
>> keep using "virtual world" (or just world in short) and
>> that that should refer to a (group of) region(s) under
>> one administration, and not to the agent domain; where
>> the world can (therefore) have a different TOS, has
>> world-wide bans issued by said administration, deals with
>> every Abuse Report against avatars in their region,
>> and which even could run on machines in a country with
>> different laws than the worlds of other administrations.
>
> I'm a fan of that loose definition of "world" myself. I think I alluded to
> something similar earlier, but to try and rephrase to cover our shared
> thinking: the boundaries of a "world" are where a user notices (or should
> notice) a difference due to policy or behavior.
>
> Like "web site" it isn't clear that that's a technical term; it shouldn't
> keep us from using the term (since we have roughly shared understanding of
> the meaning) but on the other hand we shouldn't fixate on a rigorous
> technical definition since it doesn't seem to be a first-class entity within
> the drafts we're focusing on right now.
>
> Huzzah, convergence!
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>