Re: [vwrap] one question

[Sean Hennessee <[e-mail]>]

I think this can be compared to the early web and video streaming. Long 
ago no one would seriously consider adding video streaming to a web 
browser since it would clearly be very limited by technology, (internet 
speeds, computing power, and web interface limitations). But all those 
improved over time; now we have HD 1080p video easily being streamed to 
a web browser and controlled by a large portion of the population. (As 
well as having separate stand-alone applications that display streaming 
video over the internet.) Is there a video access protocol that is 
common to all? Some are Flash; some are Quicktime; some are Real Media; 
some are just mpeg. Most of them do use common formats for the original 
video, but differ in how they stream it. Perhaps VWRAP should be about 
defining how to define what is in a virtual world, (making it expandable 
as it is likely to be anyway), and let the implementers figure out how 
best to "stream" and "control" it.

Peace,
Sean

On 09/23/2010 01:22 PM, Morgaine wrote:
> Well it goes without saying that VWs were never conceived as being Web
> apps, that would have beeen horribly limiting.  That is a recent
> affectation, and VWs have a long history that far predates the Web.
>
> However, I think that your statement "*web browser-based virtual worlds
> ... aren't considered here to be 'virtual worlds'*" (and please note
> that this is */YOUR/* statement, nobody else has said it) is too
> strong.  From my perspective they definitely are virtual worlds, albeit
> self-limited by their choice of protocol technology and interface.
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
> ====================
>
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Crista Lopes <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     On 9/23/2010 12:34 PM, Morgaine wrote:
>>     Regarding VWs and the Web "being separate", well they are
>>     separate.  They're not **isolated** from each other because they
>>     interact, but they are certainly separate.  They have distinct
>>     identities, very different semantics, and VWs have many more
>>     degrees of freedom and hence far greater potential capability.
>>     And again, don't confuse interfaces with convergence --- just
>>     because people give the Web some interfaces to VWs doesn't mean
>>     that the semantics of the Web are going to change.
>
>     OK, this pretty much nails it, Morgaine, thanks for the clarification :)
>     VWRAP is not about interoperability of web browser -based virtual
>     worlds, because they aren't considered here to be "virtual worlds."
>     Finally!
>
>     My use case for VWs is the Web, so now that I know the scope of
>     VWRAP doesn't include the Web, I can be a more effective participant.
>

-- 

Sean Hennessee
UC Irvine

... . .- -. /  .... . -. -. . ... ... . .