Re: [ogpx] Draft work on Foundation and Type System

[Joshua Bell <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:56 AM, David W Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> > ... and the (independent?) axis of "does this need to be
> > standardized at the VWRAP level at all?"
> >
> The answer to the later, is yes if you ask me. If we can't describe
> how the regions speak to the rest of the world, we're not actually
> going to have interop, we're either going to have insanely painful hand-off
> between clients, or an informal, non specified set of rules everyone has to
> follow.
>
>
Oops - what I wrote was unclear.

To avoid confusion, let me clarify: by "does this need to be standardized?",
I meant the following three closely linked ideas:

   - Does this individual message/set of related messages even make sense in
   an interop standard? For example, the current protocol has a content
   transfer system layered over UDP. I would speculate that VWRAP would use
   plain old HTTP rather than (say) attempting to recreate the current system
   as LLSD-over-EventQueue-over-HTTP!
   - As above, but there may be parts of the protocol where might agree to
   replace detailed, special-case messaging with generic functionality - for
   example, as Linden has done recently, replacing a whole sub-protocol
   surrounding search queries and results with "here's the URL of a Web page".
   In which case, the standard may include that such a URL is expected to
   exist, but nothing beyond that.
   - And to be clear, by "be standardized" I did not mean "rubber stamp
   what's in a legacy protocol", but the overall process to design and document
   forward-looking, inter-operable versions.

Discussing this face-to-face might prove beneficial. :)

Joshua