Re: [vwrap] Technical basis for VW client in a web browser?

Maybe also, one problem is the narrow definition of what a virtual
world is or should be. LL created a very rich model, but also a very
heavy one. Regardless of whether SL/OS virtual world clients will be
ported to the browser or handheld devices, virtual worlds will (and
are already, to some extent) be ported to lightweight OSes. The
browsers ports will always be 2/3 years late, but it's always been the
case, and as the browser security model (flawed as it is) still is
better than most OSes security models, hence (virtual money, asset
storing,...) I doubt support for those platforms will lag for long.
Moreover, sofar the browser platform is as close to cross platform as
can be. Mono will be dead before it achieves that.

The big question, in my opinion, is : do SL/OS developpers
wish/have_the_resouces to hop in the browser/handheld market (at the
cost of graceful degradation of performances, which is an inevitable
tradeback),... or not. If they don't others will. To take the example
of the closed Unity model (cf. Unite, Asset Store) they already ARE on
all browsers, but also on most TV box sets, handheld devices, and
consoles. What makes a technology successful, in the end, is user
adoption. Not the amazingly rich experience. (which is a shame, but
erhhh, well...)

And to the (diffuse but omnipresent) argument that OS/SL are such
heavy, difficult, dauntingly overcomplicated project, so was Apache,
and what happened ? Nginx happened, nodejs happened. Storing assets in
mysql ? Gosh, how about redis, mongo, couch,... Want more sqlness,
take riak,... Opengl on my iphone ? Hey, it's been there for years.
Javascript too slow ? You didn't test v8 properly, and even so,
javascript will be the glue, not the core language for libraries, etc,
etc...

To sum things up, vw protocols had better take light clients into
account, or they will end as the next sgml. Now, that's just my
opinion.

http://twitter.com/peterhost

On Dec 17, 2010, at 18:10, JohnnyB Hammerer <johnnybhammerer@cox.net> wrote:

> I don't understand why having a web based solution needs any justification by technical merits.  If those developing web based solutions find technical adequacy in web technologies to meet their goals I don't see a problem.
>
> I'll skip analogies involving lemmings.  ;-)  I will point out while I process most email with a dedicated email application I am very glad to have some web alternatives on those occasions that call for them.
>
> John.
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap