Re: [ogpx] A blog post from the HTML5/Websocket wars worth reading

+1

As we have no exemplars of a VWRAP compatible system at the moment, so it's
hard to point at one and say "like that!" Hence the use of SL, as a guiding
example of the abstract theory, if not (currently!) the practice, as
outlined by David's mail.

But yes, we should absolutely be saying "VWRAP-compatible" rather than
"SL-like" when we're discussing anything formally, and point at the Intro
draft (which everyone has read and likes, yes?) to clarify what that means.

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:26 AM, David W Levine <dwl@us.ibm.com> wrote:

>
> At some level, it's a tautology.  Since the VWRAP spec, not Second Life, is
> going to define VWRAP compatibility, it can't be any other way.
>
> At the same time, the path from AWG->MMOX->OGPX->VWRAP is all about finding
> a subset of possible virtual worlds which is big
> enough to be interesting, and small enough to be manageable. "Second Life
> Like" has been a convenient short hand to scope the
> problem.  What does it mean? I believe its Roughly the following: (Glancing
> at our charter)
>
>         - Avatars representing users
>         - Named Persistent areas of virtual space (Regions)
>         - Region centric state management (you can get state from the
> services facaded by a URI)
>         - Services delivered over web interfaces
>         - Policies
>
> That's certainly "Second Life like" its certainly "OpenSim Like."
>
> I fully expect that part of the challenge going forward is going to be
> providing sufficient markup
> so that world which fit within the broad umbrella of VWRAP, but differ in
> significant ways can signal
> those differences, allowing sane interoperation. I also fully expect some
> mighty odd things to happen
> when someone teleports from a grid with one physics to a grid with a
> different physics model unless
> the client, and the protocols signal properly. But.. I also think if we are
> at that point, we're winning, not losing.
>
> - David
> ~ Zha
>
>
>
>
>
>  From:
> Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
> To: barryleiba@computer.org Cc: ogpx@ietf.org Date: 02/19/2010 09:13 AM
> Subject:
> Re: [ogpx] A blog post from the HTML5/Websocket wars worth reading
> Sent by: ogpx-bounces@ietf.org
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:18:42PM -0500, Barry Leiba wrote:
> > > VWRAP is not a protocol to enshrine a particular form of world, but a
> > > protocol to define a particular form of interop.  We often make the
> mistake
> > > of referring to "SL-like worlds" in these discussions, when what we
> really
> > > mean is "VWRAP-compatible worlds".  There is certainly no need to be
> SL-like
> > > nor even SL-compatible when using VWRAP.  For example, VWRAP will
> > > undoubtedly be used by leading-edge worlds with services and assets
> that
> > > Linden Lab chooses not to handle, as a business choice.
> > >
> > > Therefore "SL-like" is a very incorrect phrase here.  We mean
> > > VWRAP-compatible.
> >
> > What she said.
> >
> > Barry
>
> Agreed. SL should be VWRAP compatible, but there is no need
> for another world that uses VWRAP to really be anything like SL.
>
> --
> Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>