Re: [vwrap] one question

[Sean Hennessee <[e-mail]>]

And in some cases I have to open an external stand-alone application to 
view the video from *some other* site because they don't have a plug-in.

(I didn't want to leave out the stand-alone application, since that is 
what most if not all of the *current* applications are for Opensim/SL.)

Peace,
Sean

On 09/24/2010 02:28 PM, Sean Hennessee wrote:
> This sounds very much like my video example.
>
> I go to one web page that shows me a video using Flash; if I don't have
> the flash plug-in, I have to download it and install it. I click on a
> link somewhere on that page that takes me to another web page that shows
> me a video using Quicktime; if I don't have the Quicktime plug-in, I
> have to download it and install it. I click on yet another link that
> takes me to yet another page that shows me a video using Real Media;
> when it asks me to download it because I don't have it, I refuse because
> of my desire not to ever use Real Media as a video player. So, I have to
> go back to my previous page or just go somewhere else entirely.
>
> All of these pages could very easily be using my Google login, or
> Facebook login, etc., as a way to identify me to each of these hosting
> sites.
>
> Each of these plug-ins allows me similar or different ways to control
> the video I am watching, i.e. some may allow pause, others may not.)
>
> All of these plug-ins are displaying digitial video. While there are
> different standards for varying formats of digital video, they are each
> being displayed in my browser using the appropriate plug-in.
>
> While it is an oversimplification of doing the same thing with virtual
> worlds, it has enough similarities that we can learn from it.
>
> Peace,
> Sean
>
> On 09/24/2010 02:03 PM, Crista Lopes wrote:
>> On 9/24/2010 1:46 PM, Hurliman, John wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>>>> Of Crista Lopes
>>>> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 1:40 PM
>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [vwrap] one question
>>>>
>>>> On 9/24/2010 1:32 PM, Hurliman, John wrote:
>>>>> For the case of your client talking to your virtual world, you don't
>>>>> have to follow any standards at all. That is completely outside the
>>>>> scope of VWRAP and no one is going to say "your client is using AJAX
>>>>> to fetch assets instead of the VWRAP standard, you're not VWRAP
>>>>> compliant!". But if you want your virtual world servers to
>>>>> interoperate with other clients that are written by other people (and
>>>>> may not be written in Javascript at all) you need to expose
>>>>> VWRAP-compliant endpoints on your servers that follow very precise
>>>>> specs. Does that clear up the possible disconnect we're having?
>>>>>
>>>> I think the disconnect is not on this conversation, as I completely
>>>> agree with
>>>> you. The disconnect is on things that are written on the drafts.
>>>>
>>> But the drafts don't apply to the case of your own client connecting
>>> to your own server using your own protocol. They don't (or shouldn't,
>>> if they do) even attempt to address that because it's way outside the
>>> interop conversation. The charter and drafts should only be talking
>>> about how you can expose precisely defined endpoints to allow
>>> auth/asset retrieval/teleporting (and more down the road) from other
>>> clients or servers that also understand the VWRAP spec. To use the
>>> OpenID or OAuth example, supporting OpenID logins on your blog does
>>> not preclude you from also supporting your own non-standard user
>>> registration and auth system. From an engineering standpoint, it's a
>>> thing tacked on to the side of your system to allow interop with other
>>> systems, it doesn't define your core architecture. If the charter or
>>> drafts are stating otherwise, please point out exactly which phrases
>>> in which paragraphs are doing so because they need to be corrected
>>> before VWRAP will go anywhere.
>>>
>> I already did on my initial review.
>> Let me give an example with as much detail as I can fit in 5 minutes.
>>
>> My student is working on a JavaScript viewer for OpenSim. He is going to
>> make a bunch of decisions about how the browser gets the assets. These
>> decisions are noone's business. I think we agree.
>>
>> Now, you go and develop another Javascript viewer for OpenSim. You are
>> going to make a bunch of decisions about how the browser gets the
>> assets, and those decisions are completely different from my student's.
>>
>> Now, I point my browser to my student's world, I login, and I get the
>> content. Great. Next I want to go from my student's world to yours, so
>> some UI happens, and I go to your world using my web browser. I also get
>> the content, as I get your JavaScript. In terms of interop, your world
>> just needs to know who I am (a user of my student's world), and how to
>> get the assets related to my avatar. The way that your JavaScript
>> program makes the assets of your world come to my browser when I visit
>> doesn't need to be the same as the way that my student's JavaScript
>> program makes the assets of his world come to my browser when I visited.
>>
>> Next step: dahlia is developing a Unity3D browser plugin for OpenSim. I
>> want to go from your world to dhalia's world. So some UI happens, and I
>> go to her world. I need to download the Unity3D web plugin, if I don't
>> have it already, and once is installed I also get the content in
>> whichever way dahlia's code makes them come the way of my browser. Her
>> world should know who I am, and how to get my assets.
>>
>> These are all independently-operated worlds with radically different
>> ways of placing the assets in my machine. And yet I ought to be able to
>> visit them all while they know who I am and how to render my avatar.
>>
>> Is this clear?
>

-- 

Sean Hennessee
UC Irvine

... . .- -. /  .... . -. -. . ... ... . .