Re: [vwrap] Status and future of the VWRAP working group

[Dzonatas Sol <[e-mail]>]

Meant to add some purpose to that last message: how to see overall 
current trends without the envelope of proprietary or institutionalized 
mechanisms, and identify region-agent transistions in media.

I did try to scrape people's simulated affinity of virtual worlds (if we 
re-charter); although, sim-usage is easier to explain and "play" with 
real-time concepts.

My front-end workstation is already encapsulated in 3D with current 
protocols, and I can't grasp why continue to put another system for 3D 
"awesome" simulation within another 3D simulation within the 3D viewer 
within 2D browser in a 2D window in the 3D monitor on a 3D network (with 
various protocols on protocols) in the real 3D world.

Thanks, I hope this is clearer.  More later....

On 05/03/2011 12:04 AM, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
> To further zoom in past to now, I wonder if we should generally 
> revisit & predict IPv4 *.net addresses have code-behind/IL that can be 
> cached or shared as assets, so we can assume to sandbox *.net when in 
> doubt. Assume IPv4 *.com addresses have code-behind/script secured on 
> site or certified for transience. Assume IPv4 *.org addresses are 
> web-fronts, proxies, gateways, and legacy. License issues 'can be 
> resolved', diplomatically, by use of *.org as transition from *.edu 
> "graduation" vitae.
>
> For virtualization, the significance here is XML element compression 
> (with pattern kinetics and shared tokenization), which further means 
> something to signal processors (or on the wire|stream|pipeline). 
> Others may already have realized "what if there were already given 
> common XML tokens for each TLD based on above" and even though the XML 
> tag name is the same, the token value may differ for context (and 
> precursorial types). If you follow, the differences in tokens values 
> may act like pre-compressed interop states or less than volatile 
> expect-states.
>
> Hmmm....  think I avoided terminology of quantum-jargon, dynamic 
> compilers, and trinary arithmetics in the above.
>
> So I came up for a breath of air, and looked at http://test-ipv6.com/
>
> ...then wondered about the viewer in a browser, or browser in a 
> viewer, and reviewed the above ideology again (and fell-back to 
> "frames" possibility and windows "surface" probability).
>
> On 04/30/2011 09:45 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> That said, we need to be leading this discussion on consensus that can
>>> be documented and posted. �And we need to focus on that and accomplish
>>> it soon, for a vague but near-term value of "soon".
>> We had a good bit of discussion in early April.  Now that we're at the
>> end of April, and the discussions seem to have stopped for the last
>> couple of weeks, I'd like a progress report.  Has there been any work
>> on coming to consensus on the direction the group wants to take?  Any
>> progress on consensus for the contents of an intro/overview document?
>>
>> Barry, as chair
>> _______________________________________________
>> vwrap mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>
>
>


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