Re: [vwrap] one question

[<[e-mail]>]

Why is number of people an issue?

Why does having a server mean it is a virtual world in a browser?

I guess this group is too set into the SL model of things and I will stop
participating.

Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Meadhbh Hamrick [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 2:42 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [vwrap] one question

yes. it's a great mashup. but it's doesn't meet the VWRAP definition
of a "virtual world" because you only have one person in it: you.

when you can race with other people at the same time, then we've got
something.

also, i'm guessing that there is a server component to this app, so
it's not a "virtual world in a browser" it may be a client capable of
rendering a virtual experience, but that's not what this group is
focused on.

--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]



On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:38 AM,  <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Well, take a look at this and tell me that web, internet, and virtual
worlds
> aren’t all converging and to try to say they are separate and browser are
> being used in the wrong way.
>
>
>
> http://robotduck.wordpress.com/2010/09/11/hometown-gp-launched/
>
>
>
> K.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Morgaine
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 1:53 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [vwrap] one question
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Cristina Videira Lopes
<[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I think that answers your question from the VWRAP end, but I get the
feeling
> there's something missing still.  Perhaps I could pose a question of my
own
> to help the discussion:  Do you consider a "virtual world that uses the
web
> browser as the client" to be significantly different to a virtual world
that
> doesn't define the type of client?
>
> No; I'm interested in virtual worlds that are Web applications -- no more,
> no less. But the VWRAP protocol seems to be defining a specific type of
> client, and hence, a specific way of writing the JavaScript program -- at
> least wrt the endpoints.
>
>
>
> To some extent, this embroils us in issues of direction and philosophy.
> Some people say "We're trying to build the 3D Web", but they're completely
> wrong, mistaking an analogy (how the Web is structured and how it exploded
> in popularity) with the direction (to create a metaverse of some kind).
> Sure, we hope that it'll be as large and as popular as the Web, or even
more
> popular, but that doesn't mean that the goal is in any way related to the
> Web.
>
> In matters of technology, we're trying to use as much Web tech as we can,
> but again, that's not because virtual worlds have any actual relationship
to
> the Web.  It just means that we're sensibly trying to ride on the
shoulders
> of giants, reaping the benefits of very efficient (and cheap) Web
> infrastructure.  When we link VWs to Web content, that's just because
people
> need their Web-side data or want to harness Web-side functionality, and it
> would make no sense at all to deny them access to that from within VWs.
>
> But again, that Web access has nothing to do with virtual worlds being in
> any way related to the Web, they're not.  Indeed, they're not even Web
apps,
> they're Internet apps, and there's a significant difference.  (The
> difference is in the data and comms models, more than merely the use of
> particular protocols or ports.  IRC isn't a web app either, despite having
> gateways on the Web.)
>
> Which brings us to the thorniest issue of the lot, the client.  Browsers
are
> made for browsing the Web, and if at all possible one should not be trying
> to bang in screws with a hammer.  If browser fans insist on using a tool
> designed for a different purpose to access VWs, fine, it's their choice,
but
> it's also their problem if they find that it's not a natural fit.  Perhaps
> they can adapt browser technology to fit better, and that would be cool,
but
> that task is theirs.  They shouldn't expect the very different semantics
of
> virtual worlds to be restricted to fit into the much narrower pigeon hole
of
> Web applications.
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
>
> ==============================
>
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Cristina Videira Lopes
<[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Morgaine wrote:
>
> But in VWRAP, it is immaterial what kind of client application runs the
> client endpoint of the VWRAP protocols, so the phrase "virtual worlds that
> use the web browser as the client" doesn't really make much sense in our
> context.  The answer is Yes only because we scratch our heads and then
> ignore the phrase as an unnecessary condition.  Sure, why not? :-)))
>
>
>
> OK. So there are "client endpoints of the VWRAP protocol". Does this mean
> that there are defined behaviors for a VWRAP client on those endpoints? In
> other words, if my viewer is in JavaScript, I have to make the JavaScript
> program do things in specific ways, and not others, in order to be able to
> interoperate in VWRAP?
>
>
> Admittedly, your student would probably need to do some rather unnatural
> coding since the VW model is really quite distant from the Web model, and
> Javascript in the browser runs sandboxed so it's an interesting question
how
> your client would be coaxed to talk to various external services, for
> example to be able to see assets worn by visitors from other worlds.
> (Remember that VWRAP is not tied to the SL model in which everything is
> proxied through the current sim, a highly non-scalable arrangement.)
>
> CORS addresses that issue (avoiding the jasonp trick).
> But this exposes the point I'm trying to clarify: on the web browser,
VWRAP
> seems to be *forcing* application developers to use CORS, instead of
leaving
> that as an independent engineering decision of each application. Why?
>
>
>
> I think that answers your question from the VWRAP end, but I get the
feeling
> there's something missing still.  Perhaps I could pose a question of my
own
> to help the discussion:  Do you consider a "virtual world that uses the
web
> browser as the client" to be significantly different to a virtual world
that
> doesn't define the type of client?
>
> No; I'm interested in virtual worlds that are Web applications -- no more,
> no less. But the VWRAP protocol seems to be defining a specific type of
> client, and hence, a specific way of writing the JavaScript program -- at
> least wrt the endpoints.
>
>
>
> I would hope your answer is "No", since otherwise it would suggest that
> worlds are going to Balkanize by the clients they use, which of course
would
> help nobody, and interop would be compromised.
>
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>