Re: [vwrap] one question

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 <lopes@ics.uci.edu> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>