Re: [vwrap] End point "behavior"

[Crista Lopes <[e-mail]>]

On 9/23/2010 11:11 AM, Meadhbh Hamrick wrote:
> the great thing about standards is there are so many to choose from.
>
> if you want to use the asset and teleport portions of VWRAP without
> the seed cap part, go for it.
>
> it's not up to the protocol designers to decide how you wish to deploy
> your virtual world services. but clearly if you want to interoperate
> with someone who IS using the VWRAP Service Establishment pattern,
> you'll have to follow that draft.
>
> this is part of the "we define mechanism, not policy" mantra.
>    

This statement is true for phat clients; it is false for the web 
browser, because for the web browser some of these "standard-compliant" 
mechanisms are intrusions into policy and engineering design -- and 
irrelevant for interop, as far as I can tell. The standard, for web 
browsers, should be agnostic on these mechanisms. Putting an asset in 
the user's machine by pulling or pushing is irrelevant, each world can 
do it in whichever way it wants, and it will all work.

So the drafts need to say: "if you have a client whose viewer is fixed, 
then here are the standards necessary for interop; if you have a client 
that takes the viewer dynamically, then these mechanisms are not 
necessary for interop." Or else say, right upfront: "these standards are 
for clients whose viewer is fixed; they are implementation 
recommendations for clients with dynamic viewers based on... good 
practices(?)"