Re: [vwrap] one question

Crista, I believe you've misunderstood David's post here.

He simply pointed out that your logic was flawed as you had used a straw man
argument, and from such an argument one can derive no logical conclusion at
all.

That's fair.  We need to point out such mis-steps in the conversation,
otherwise this turns into a handwaving debate, whereas what we're after is a
well-formed technical discussion.

And David's point was accurate.  You had made a claim about VWRAP
interoperability that bore no relationship to anything published nor said,
and then you argued against it.  That was wrong.  And now, as a result, it's
led to even more erroneous conclusions.  Such flawed lines of reasoning
don't lead anywhere useful.

After just a few days here, it's no surprise that some parts of the protocol
and the intent are still puzzling to you, but that is addressed by letting
us explain them, not by inventing incorrect interpretations after such short
exposure.

We're all very interested in making VWRAP easily understandable to anyone
with an interest, and we fully accept that the current draft documents do
not approach that intended goal at all.  But all this can be fixed, and I
don't see any disparity of goals at all.

Morgaine.

=======================

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Crista Lopes <lopes@ics.uci.edu> wrote:

> On 9/24/2010 11:26 AM, David W Levine wrote:
>
>>
>> This is a strawman in classic form. VWRAP proposes to solve a set of real
>> and useful interopability problems. Nobody has stated that it solves all
>> VW interoperability issues, and that ANYONE has to use it for any purpose
>> at all.
>>
>>  I understand. The issue here is one of usefulness, and you are right that
> you probably don't want to comment on that in the drafts :). If I have a
> client with a fixed viewer, then VWRAP might be useful as a standard. If I
> have a client with hypermedia, then VWRAP doesn't seem that useful as a
> standard. I think this has been a major confusion point with people whose
> use cases are the Web. For the Web, VWRAP looks like a set of prescriptions
> that have absolutely nothing to do with interoperability of virtual worlds,
> because I expect the internal engineering decisions of my virtual world to
> be off limits from anyone else. So things like the login procedure or
> sending the assets to the client are my decisions only, and no one else's
> business. It's very confusing that interoperability touches on those.
>
> Hence the other question of whether VWRAP was even about interoperability
> or not. I actually liked Meadhbh's answer that it wasn't -- I thought that
> was very consistent with the draft.
>
> I understand VWRAP now. It's not that useful for my use case (the Web and
> everything that already exists in it) but I have nothing else to say about
> it.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>