Re: [vwrap] Follow-up from "What's *not* in VWRAP" presentation

[Joshua Bell <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Dzonatas Sol <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I think what was proposed by "What's *not* in VWRAP" is to establish a
> default capability-to-scheme map, which would vwrap implementation to
> proceed without full flexibility of other possible schemes per capability.

Jeepers, I hope not!

In a nutshell, the presentation said:

* People ask "When is XYZ going to be included in VWRAP?"
* The Linden Lab Legacy Protocol has lots of cruft in the subprotocols
(there are more protocol message types for search than for scene graph
updates!)
* The VWRAP WG Charter outlines the things the WG is working on which
form the core of interop (see the charter)
* Maybe anything beyond that (e.g. search, world map, etc) don't need
to be standardized at all in VWRAP as custom protocols and/or content
types
* Maybe, if they do need to be standardized, the minimum necessary for
interop might be e.g. as URLs pointing at human-readable Web pages -
e.g. when connecting to a world you could be given a mapping of
{'search': 'http://search.thisvirtualworld.org', 'map':
'http://map.thisvirtualworld.org' } or some such. I dunno.
* So... don't assume XYZ will be done the same way that LLLP does it,
or that XYZ even needs to be in VWRAP
* But if you believe that XYZ *is* necessary to specify for interop
and should be part of VWRAP, then the onus is on you to advocate for
it by writing specifications and providing implementations!

There was also an aside in the presentation that pointed out that
VWRAP will require transport(s) with a variety of characteristics
(reliable/RESTful, reliable/streaming, unrealiable/streaming) and that
investigation needs to be done, as is called out in the WG charter.