Re: [vwrap] one question

I don't think that anyone has said that.. The whole point of the careful
separation of concerns, content negotiation styles and explicitly defining
VWRAP as a set of
protocol end points says just the opposite. I think the only point which
has been repeatedly made is that there are issues of technical maturity.
There is a fair bit of
push back to the idea that a virtual shared space is "merely" or "just" a
type of web page, with an emphasis on the phrase page. This is because
there are some
basic things about a highly visual shared experience which are pretty
different from the typical web 1 or even (and I hate the phrase) web 2 web
page.

A web based client is just another client. If it is rich enough to accept
the content and render it effectively, its a client. I don't think anyone
would say otherwise.
Where the services used to host a virtual reside is also not of interest.
Any environment which can serve up the content can host a VWRAP service. If
you look at the mailing list and some of the drafts which have been
submitted and some of the presentations you will see discussions about how
to deal with resources hosted in a variety of ways. There's also been a lot
of discussion on how the design pattern is effectively a facade intended to
avoid any external need to understand how a service is deployed.

VWRAP has made a distinction that for a given virtual space there is a URI
addressable place in the web which holds the "state" of the virtual space.
This does stand
in distinction to some of the peer to peer co-simulation designs. There was
also some very cogent discussion about how to bridge those models.

- David
~ Zha

vwrap-bounces@ietf.org wrote on 09/23/2010 03:52:20 PM:

> From:
>
> Crista Lopes <lopes@ics.uci.edu>
>
> To:
>
> vwrap@ietf.org
>
> Date:
>
> 09/23/2010 03:54 PM
>
> Subject:
>
> Re: [vwrap] one question
>
> Sent by:
>
> vwrap-bounces@ietf.org
>
> On 9/23/2010 12:34 PM, Morgaine wrote:
> Regarding VWs and the Web "being separate", well they are separate.
> They're not *isolated* from each other because they interact, but
> they are certainly separate.  They have distinct identities, very
> different semantics, and VWs have many more degrees of freedom and
> hence far greater potential capability.  And again, don't confuse
> interfaces with convergence --- just because people give the Web
> some interfaces to VWs doesn't mean that the semantics of the Web
> are going to change.
>
> OK, this pretty much nails it, Morgaine, thanks for the clarification :)
> VWRAP is not about interoperability of web browser -based virtual
> worlds, because they aren't considered here to be "virtual worlds."
> Finally!
>
> My use case for VWs is the Web, so now that I know the scope of
> VWRAP doesn't include the Web, I can be a more effective participant.
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap