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

[Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>]

because that's what you find in web browsers: HTML rendering,
Javascript and i you're lucky canvas support, SVG and increasingly
WebGL.
--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]



On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 2:24 PM,  <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I never used the word javascript.  Why are you assuming web based
> application needs to use javascript?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meadhbh Hamrick [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:55 PM
> To: Dan Olivares
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in the protocol
>
> kevin mentioned he had a javascript based virtual world simulator that
> ran in a browser.
>
> i'm surprised it can support multiple users.
>
> --
> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Dan Olivares <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I thought the JavaScript portion of this discussion was out of scope.
>>
>> A client is a client whether it's implemented in JavaScript in a web
> browser
>> or if it's implemented as a native application running on a machine.   A
>> browser+javascript based client isn't more relevant then any other client
> in
>> technical terms.
>>
>> A server can serve a javascript application that then makes use of what we
>> decide here.
>> It isn't necessary to assume that it always will be a web browser +
>> javascript application to produce an effective standard.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> um. since when is UDP a "web technology"?
>>>
>>> also, the javascript server you have running in your browser, if
>>> you're behind a NATted firewall, doesn't that require you to
>>> manipulate your firewall to route a public port/address to your
>>> browser?
>>>
>>> --
>>> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
>>> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:38 PM,  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> > I also have a game server that uses TCP/UDP that runs from my server,
> to
>>> > handle the object synchronization.  My point is I am using what all are
>>> > considered web technologies.
>>> >
>>> > I was more making the point, why even say it is a web app or not.  As
>>> > long
>>> > the exposed behavior of my system supports the protocols and formats
>>> > that
>>> > are needed it can interact with other systems.
>>> >
>>> > And the URL is the web page that the world is hosted on.  And I had
> 300+
>>> > avatars walking around in this web page.
>>> >
>>> > K.
>>> >
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: Meadhbh Hamrick [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:26 PM
>>> > To: [e-mail]
>>> > Subject: Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in the protocol
>>> >
>>> > also. how many other people are connected to your javascript virtual
>>> > region simulator running in your browser?
>>> >
>>> > what URL do you give them to connect to it?
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
>>> > @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:19 PM,  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> >> Why is virtual world not a web app?  My virtual world runs in a
> browser
>>> > and
>>> >> can talk to my webserver.
>>> >>
>>> >> K.
>>> >>
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>>> >> Of
>>> >> Meadhbh Hamrick
>>> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 3:37 PM
>>> >> To: [e-mail]
>>> >> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>> >> Subject: Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in the protocol
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Cristina Videira Lopes
>>> >> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> >>> Cristina Videira Lopes wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> You can dictate that. But then this will be completely irrelevant in
>>> >>>> a
>>> >>>> couple of years when WebGL is actually usable or when Google
> finishes
>>> >> their
>>> >>>> virtual machine for running safe native code on browsers.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ...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. if i simply started streaming an
>>> >> OnLive session of someone doing SecondLife in a flash based video
>>> >> player, there's absolutely no way to guarantee that the data used to
>>> >> create the scene would be available to the client.
>>> >>
>>> >>> The second point is: when we have all that variety of viewer
>>> >> implementations
>>> >>> that are all equally accepted by the web browser, we are still to
> cope
>>> >> with
>>> >>> portability of user agent simulation state between those worlds --
> and
>>> >>> that's the bottom line for interoperability of virtual worlds on the
>>> >>> Web.
>>> >>> I'm interested in this, because it's much more foundational than the
>>> >> variety
>>> >>> of virtual world implementation options.
>>> >>
>>> >> also... the virtual world is not a web application.
>>> >>
>>> >> if you look at typical web apps, the mashing up is usually done at the
>>> >> server side, turned into HTML and then sent to the browser.
>>> >>
>>> >> we're starting to see a lot more apps where JavaScript is used to do
>>> >> mashups in the client, but...
>>> >>
>>> >> VWRAP was chartered to work on server-authoritative worlds (like
>>> >> Second Life and OpenSim.) that means there's a lot of state in the
>>> >> simulator. it sounds like you want to open this state up and push its
>>> >> simulation to the edge of the network (and thus support
>>> >> co-simulation.)
>>> >>
>>> >> did i read that right? did you really just say that virtual worlds are
>>> >> client web apps?
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> vwrap mailing list
>>> >>> [e-mail]
>>> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>> >>>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> vwrap mailing list
>>> >> [e-mail]
>>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> vwrap mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>
>>
>
>