Re: [vwrap] one question

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

If I'm reading this correctly, there is no difference at all between
"web-based virtual worlds" and the kind we already know.  All that is being
stated repeatedly is that the world has a Web interface.  Well that is not
an actual difference in the world, just an extra interface or feature.

It looks to me like we have no distinct *VIRTUAL WORLD* use case here at
all.

+1 to John when he wrote:

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Hurliman, John <[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

>
> For the case of your client talking to your virtual world, you don't have
> to follow any standards at all. That is completely outside the scope of
> VWRAP and no one is going to say "your client is using AJAX to fetch assets
> instead of the VWRAP standard, you're not VWRAP compliant!". But if you want
> your virtual world servers to interoperate with other clients that are
> written by other people (and may not be written in Javascript at all) you
> need to expose VWRAP-compliant endpoints on your servers that follow very
> precise specs.
>


Indeed.  I think it's going to be very common that worlds have their own
distinctive interfaces and other features.  But it is extremely likely that
most worlds will be based on standard world frameworks like OpenSimulator
behind those interfaces, because developing worlds is hard, and reusing
existing software is much easier and cheaper.

It appears that we have a non-issue here since there is no different world
type to consider.


Morgaine.





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

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Crista Lopes <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  On 9/24/2010 1:20 PM, Morgaine wrote:
>
> That does not define any kind of virtual world.  It defines a client type.
>
> Please define the *WORLD* type, not by reference to something outside the
> world.
>
>
> It's a web application that sends 3D graphics to the web browser.
>
>
>