Re: [vwrap] one question

[Mike Dickson <[e-mail]>]

  On 09/24/2010 03:07 PM, Crista Lopes 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.
I really don't know what that means and it seems to be at the crux of 
your argument.  As David has suggested could you possibly offer up a 
concrete use case or example that you feel isn't covered by the existing 
work and we can use that as a point for discussion.
> 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.
Again, I dont understand your assertion.  I need an example of the 
alternative.  SecondLife, OpenSim, etc... all use the kind of 
interaction proposed for VWRAP.  It's based on existing practice.  There 
may be better ways to do it but without a specific example its hard to 
discuss that.  You, yourself have advocated standards based on working 
code and in the VWRAP case we have that.  You need to provide examples 
of what doesn't work or we can't have a meaningful discussion.

Mike
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap