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

Dzonatas Sol <> Tue, 03 May 2011 07:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB616E06DB for <>; Tue, 3 May 2011 00:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rts+15-XBLkf for <>; Tue, 3 May 2011 00:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A49BE06D4 for <>; Tue, 3 May 2011 00:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk5 with SMTP id 5so4200548pzk.31 for <>; Tue, 03 May 2011 00:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=60KhxdZ7Msr9g04Epy/hg7NnAWkME4l8DHhS5xjMdqk=; b=TdrnUpU6hJxPiW0g6E4Z8WP960wuBuZZCZK2dFhzI9haK3l6VF5Mkz198lH2xUcyi+ faDZH6pHNPmDKGxG4FtXYgshye8wLQRy82xkvri9JPxL9xJou6RjKWXrr0Qg2uGD1n78 5pkGtRWzCAgfTraZ1cY6DOG3+PpwCWKrvFx8g=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ZLeNhnv5PmOH+U7/OlbSmyQJtIrfVgnyl1yxgv9v3EcnWRXU1fe+bOBmla1evNXQi8 APuPjUI8kbFoYShU/Ymn3LrO9KaBEz++f3kmN60cg9lgBh2IagGfkj7u/0LfxDcq+BQD yqiytmSlCDKZlYC+Yq4Uvlyn/jrliNysl4Ez4=
Received: by with SMTP id z2mr5014008pbm.327.1304406351730; Tue, 03 May 2011 00:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPS id d6sm4322657pbs.29.2011. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 03 May 2011 00:05:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 00:04:41 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110307 Icedove/3.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Status and future of the VWRAP working group
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 07:12:42 -0000

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

...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

--- ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant