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

[David W Levine <[e-mail]>]

Kari Lippert <[e-mail]> wrote on 02/17/2010 11:36:55 AM:

> [image removed] 
> 
> Re: [ogpx] A blog post from the HTML5/Websocket wars worth reading
> 
> Kari Lippert 
> 
> to:
> 
> David W Levine, ogpx
> 
> 02/17/2010 11:37 AM
> 
> Oh my, thanks for sharing... yes, I see some similarities too... but
> I think in the case of VWRAP, we are obliged to provide the protocol
> and also the "object(s)" including the semantics and intended 
> interpretation. If it is rich enough, the future will be able to 
> happen from within. And it the past is any indication, through 
> thoughtful re-purposing of things well defined!
> 
> Kari
>  
> 
> 
> http://kjlippert.wordpress.com/
> http://community.webshots.com/user/MissGnomer

My personal take away is twofold:

First, describing "what" is sent is the win, not how to process it. So, 
you get to say
"this is a prim who's visual shape is X" not "In order to display this 
prim you must take
and apply the following behavior. "This is an idempotent motion update" 
not "Take motion update 46
and apply it to the following state machine" 

Second, we want layering which follows Tim's notions that we not get into 
the multiple complex framing
thoughts, and hiding what we are doing. The side by side comparison of the 
two specification styles is
illuminating. 

Other take away thoughts as well, but those were my first two big ones. (I 
also plead guilty to wanting
to make people aware of all the websocket/hybi stuff)


- David
~ Zha