Thread Subject: Re: Second Life

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Aug 03 2007 9:10 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Will Pearson: "Re: Second Life"
• Previous message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Second Life"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Jim Wrote:
> I think SecondLife uses both proprietary and public protocols
> simultaneously, but otherwise it's as you describe it: an
> installed application that uses remote data to drive the
> local processing.
> But with respect to HTTP, I think the logic should go the other way:
> if something doesn't use HTTP, then we shouldn't limit the
> provisions to "things that we call 'web' becuase they use HTTP".

This resonates with me.

If we use HTTP to define web - we can't call it Web if it doesn't
specifically use HTTP but it very well may. If it doesn't - then the way we
do the guidelines should still ensure that we have everything covered -
which I think the guidelines did do even when separate.

So Jim's characterization seems like what it should come out like either way
- and if not then we need to re-think it.




Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Jim Tobias
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 9:52 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life
>
> Gregg wrote:
> > 1) It would seem we absolutely need to address this topic in the
> > standards.
> > The government is beginning to use it and it is definitely
> E&IT so it
> > is subject to 508. I would seem that our regs will be applied to
> > Second Life whether we want them to or not. So we should be
> sure that
> > we have sensible way to do so.
>
> I agree; SecondLife and others like it should be the acid
> test of the completeness of the web & software provisions.
>
> > 2) Is Second Life actually a Web application as we have
> defined them
> > or is it just a software program that interacts with data over the
> > Internet.
> > You use HTTP to download an install program. But you could
> also have
> > one sent to you by a buddy via the US mail if you wanted
> to. Once you
> > install it
> > - doest it use HTTP to access content? Or does it use another
> > protocol. If not HTTP then it isn't web content as we have
> defined it.
>
> I think SecondLife uses both proprietary and public protocols
> simultaneously, but otherwise it's as you describe it: an
> installed application that uses remote data to drive the
> local processing.
> But with respect to HTTP, I think the logic should go the other way:
> if something doesn't use HTTP, then we shouldn't limit the
> provisions to "things that we call 'web' becuase they use HTTP".
>
>

• Next message in Thread: Will Pearson: "Re: Second Life"
• Previous message in Thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Second Life"