Re: [vwrap] one question

[Cristina Videira Lopes <[e-mail]>]

Let me go back to my original comments by reposting my original 
question: "Is VWRAP set up to develop protocols for interoperability 
between virtual worlds that, like these ones, use the web browser as the 
client?" John and Jonathan answered yes. Morgaine, Meadhbh and David 
gave ambiguous answers somewhere between yes and no.

The answer to this question cannot be ambiguous, for the following reason.

It has been stated here countless times that the goal of these standards 
is to define "mechanism, not policy". The current instantiation of 
VWRAP, as described in the drafts, goes deep into the realm of policy 
when a web browser is involved, as it prescribes that (a) the login 
procedure results in a seed capability sent to the client, which then 
invokes it to get more capabilities; and (b) assets are pulled by 
clients. Were these fundamental for interoperability of VWs on the Web, 
then we wouldn't have an option but to accept them. But they aren't. 
They are policies -- possible implementation options.

I understand that for a client with a fixed viewer the situation is 
different: the viewer component doesn't change, so, for a fixed family 
of virtual worlds, we need to devise one single mechanism governing the 
client, the server, and the access to resources. But the Web is exactly 
this: hypermedia that includes programs.

Hence my original review comment: you need to come clear with the 
specification of the client.

It's ok to say that VWRAP is thought for clients with fixed viewers, and 
that clients with variable viewers -- like the web browser -- may want 
to follow these mechanisms because they are sensible, but they don't 
have to.

It's not ok to mislead readers of these documents into thinking that VW 
interoperability on the Web MUST follow the mechanisms prescribed here 
(as they are now).