Re: [vwrap] vwrap Digest, Vol 11, Issue 29

[Dzonatas Sol <[e-mail]>]

Indeed, let me add the client/server at the source code level really 
only refers to who initiates the connection and who authenticates. That 
may create even more confusion when, in full duplex and multi-point, the 
client/server roles could switch any moment based on availability of 
protocols and capabilities. To use these transfer-level terminology at 
any higher-level definition is surely to continue to create such unclarity.

 From a provider level, they probably want to be known as the "server", 
where avatars can connect. That may seem simple, but it is backwards in 
the source level. To do such means that the implementations can not use 
such language, or suffer headaches to wrap one mindsets around 
non-implementor's dream.

I think there was some vote to narrow some terminology to client/server 
on this list within the time you noted. Whatever happens, let us please 
keep in mind the diction at the source level.

Katherine Mancuso wrote:
> Hey Dzonatas,
>
> I've seen you raise the server-client distinction issue a couple
> times. I actually raised this, particularly with respect to Mark
> Lentzcner's draft, at the last WG F2F (which, wow, was a whole year
> ago now).  I'd like to note that these words are being used
> inconsistently and unclearly in some of our existing drafts and we
> need to push to use more precise language and if we're going to use
> these words (which are fairly weak because they have a lot of existing
> meanings) make sure we define them consistently in the glossary.
> There's a big problem in particular between distinguishing region &
> server.
>
> Katherine
>
>   


-- 
--- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant