Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in the protocol

[Cristina Videira Lopes <[e-mail]>]

Meadhbh Hamrick wrote:
>>>> ...or when server-side streaming goes mainstream, and being in a virtual
>>>> world is as simple as running a video player plus a few JavaScript/native
>>>> back channels to the server.
>>>>
>>>> First point is: according to the Web principles, each web application
>>>> controls 100% what and how the client gets via this really powerful
>>>> concept
>>>> of hypermedia. It is unlikely that the world is going to adopt a standard
>>>> that forces implementers to take several steps back on this kind of
>>>> autonomy. The diversity is what gives service providers an edge.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> hold on there! you just gave two completely opposing examples. if i
>>> have a video player that's receiving raster lines from a distant game
>>> server, that's TOTALLY the opposite of a client having complete
>>> control over it's hypermedia input.
>>>       
>> What? %-)
>> The *server* has control, not the client. The server decides whether to
>> provide a VW via video streaming, whether to send out a native piece of code
>> that represents the "viewer" or whether to send JavaScript. The client
>> simply accepts whatever the server sends.
>>
>> If the VWRAP protocol says: "servers send capabilities of assets to clients
>> and clients pull the assets by invoking those capabilities and then mash it
>> up and render it" you're doing very strong assumptions about the viewer;
>> you're basically excluding the video player (because there is no asset data
>> to pull). Point is: capabilities (or CORS) are an implementation option of
>> the application. They are not the only option, and they are not fundamental
>> for interoperability -- at least certainly not the asset-related
>> capabilities.
>>
>> This was my comment to one of the sections where you go into explaining this
>> mashup.
>>
>>     
>
> my point is that if you're going to depend on CORS in the client to do
> app mashup, and one of the servers sends you HTML that includes a
> flash plugin that only sends video of a distantly rendered SecondLife
> app window, you're going to have a hard time picking apart the data
> that went into composing the video by services from other servers.
>   
Exactly. So you don't pick it apart. And that's a decision of whoever 
wrote the web application. It's not anyone's business.