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

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