Re: [vwrap] one question

[Crista Lopes <[e-mail]>]

On 9/24/2010 11:26 AM, David W Levine wrote:
>
> This is a strawman in classic form. VWRAP proposes to solve a set of real
> and useful interopability problems. Nobody has stated that it solves all
> VW interoperability issues, and that ANYONE has to use it for any purpose
> at all.
>
I understand. The issue here is one of usefulness, and you are right 
that you probably don't want to comment on that in the drafts :). If I 
have a client with a fixed viewer, then VWRAP might be useful as a 
standard. If I have a client with hypermedia, then VWRAP doesn't seem 
that useful as a standard. I think this has been a major confusion point 
with people whose use cases are the Web. For the Web, VWRAP looks like a 
set of prescriptions that have absolutely nothing to do with 
interoperability of virtual worlds, because I expect the internal 
engineering decisions of my virtual world to be off limits from anyone 
else. So things like the login procedure or sending the assets to the 
client are my decisions only, and no one else's business. It's very 
confusing that interoperability touches on those.

Hence the other question of whether VWRAP was even about 
interoperability or not. I actually liked Meadhbh's answer that it 
wasn't -- I thought that was very consistent with the draft.

I understand VWRAP now. It's not that useful for my use case (the Web 
and everything that already exists in it) but I have nothing else to say 
about it.