[sldev] From Browser Wars to Virtual World Interoperability

[Dzonatas]

I'm amazed by the web browser authors and the script language 
redesigners just can't seem to focus together on future models for 
virtual world interoperability instead of past web models.

There is major debate about OpenAjax, ES4, ES3, ES3.1, Javascript, Ajax, 
.NET, Silverlight, Mono, and more. This might exclude JavaFX since its 
component design is different than Ajax and Silverlight.

A little recap follows.

Microsoft's perspective: 
http://blogs.msdn.com/cwilso/archive/2007/10/31/what-i-think-about-es4.aspx

Chris Wilson speaks a bit off the cuff about ES4 and alternatives. 
Notice this quote:

"My point is that it's a fallacy to think that you're evolving 
Javascript if your expectation is that the scripts will have a different 
type param, and be handled by a separate runtime (i.e. the 
ScreamingMonkey <http://wiki.mozilla.org/Tamarin:ScreamingMonkey> 
approach).  That doesn't seem like it will have good interop to me, at 
least not in a world where mashups and separate code components from 
disparate places (all of which are some variant of ES3 today) are the norm."

The scope of that statement includes not only the more web scripted 
languages but also the core of .NET, Mono, Java, and ECMA itself. If you 
look at this soley from a web based model, you probably think it only 
means just the scope of javascript. On slashdot, you'll see there was 
the conspiracy-theorist about Sliverlight and accusation over a motive 
that Microsoft takes patents on the language. Chris recognizes that 
factor might happen:

" I think it's a shame that dissenting opinion has been hidden from 
view, and not publicized; certainly, I think the Microsoft response 
hasn't been very audible, but that's partly because we've been trying to 
figure out if it's just us - but of course, us trying to understand what 
other people think of the proposal in detail has also generated some 
apparent conspiracy-theorism.  I also think it's a shame that the 
response to any dissent has equated to shouting the dissenters down."

Chris left it directed at interoperability and open for input on overall 
ideas, but we see the issue gets pushed back to browser wars here:

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roadmap/archives/2007/10/open_letter_to_chris_wilson.html

Notice this comment:
"The small-is-beautiful generalization alternates with 
don't-break-the-web, again without specifics in reply to specific 
demonstrations of compatibility. Oh, and sometimes fix-security-first is 
put forth, without 
<http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=discussion:resurrected_eval#resolved_issues> 
sound /and sufficient/ solutions.

At best, we have a fundamental conflict of visions and technical values 
between the majority and the minority."

Again, if you just look at this from a traditional web based model, 
Brendan's comments could have been valid, but there is another majority 
here being totally left out of the discussion. Brandan's comments 
focuses only context creators of the past web models.

That is purely obvious by Brendan's next paragraph:

"However, the obvious conflict of interest between the standards-based 
web and proprietary <http://silverlight.net/> platforms 
<http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms752299.aspx> advanced by 
Microsoft, and the rationales for keeping the web's client-side 
programming language small while the proprietary platforms rapidly 
evolve support for large languages 
<http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/May-01.html>, does not help 
maintain the fiction that only clashing high-level philosophies are 
involved here."

I suggest to read the Brendan's page with all the comments and 
especially the first comment... "OpenAjax"... this whole discussion 
still centers not only on browser wars and VMs but OpenAjax.

We have one crowd that says ES4 and related movement is fine for web 
based model. The dissent, however, is not against that under just that 
limited scope.

What's being missed goes beyond the scope of the web based model of the 
browser wars. That is where the real dissent comes.

Part of the crowd tries but hasn't quite thought outside of the box on 
this one. Look at this next article for example:

http://blog.mozilla.com/rob-sayre/2007/11/01/browser-war-hardly./

Notice the big sphere that says: "MicrosoftScript" but then the statements:

"Yes, I'm serious. I made up the name, because I don't know anything 
about it. I think it's a secret project of some kind.

    * Douglas Crockford
      <http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=meetings:minutes_mar_21_2007#discussion>:
      /"ES4 should be a maintenance release on ES3. There is another
      language that we need to consider for the future. "/
    * Allen Wirfs-Brock
      <http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=meetings:minutes_mar_21_2007#discussion>:
      /"But should all web development be done in ECMAScript?"/
    * Chris Wilson
      <http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2007/10/30/ecmascript-3-and-beyond.aspx#5788577>:
      /"In our opinion, a revolution in ECMAScript would be best done
      with an entirely new language"/

I don't actually have a problem with this. No one can or should stop 
anyone else from experimenting with their own inventions on the Web. I 
don't think it's likely to succeed in the market, but Microsoft has been 
right before. I don't see why a campaign of ES4 FUD is required, though. 
If the ES4 majority is really that loony, the standard will fail all by 
itself."

Rob "thinks" it is a secret project of some kind. Others think, out of 
some sort of conspiracy, that it is some new design in Sliverlight that 
Microsoft will push onto the browser wars.

One *MAJOR* perspective and crowd is being missed here...  that is 
virtual worlds, the viewers, and the content creators of the virtual worlds.

Instead of "MiscrosoftScript", lets put this in perspective and rewrite 
that name in that sphere comparison with "The Second Life Viewer".

Is the Second Life Viewer a web browser? AH-HA!!!!!

It is the virtual world equivalent of a web browser. No, it does not 
exactly fit in the traditional since of a web browser, so Brendan has 
the wrong perspective on how Chris started the discussion.

Does Chris say "interoperability" with different light, yes, and it's 
not about Silverlight: "It's been pointed out that we haven't made an 
alternate proposal - well, I'd kinda hoped we could work it out together."

Is Mono/.NET/Silverlight the answer? No.

Is Java/JavaScript/ECMA/OpenAjax the answer? No.

Those aren't the answer because to interface those traditional web 
technologies with the advancement of virtual world technology gets way 
complex and incompatible. This has been shown by the amount of time 
spent to work Mono into Second Life, and this has been shown by the 
difficulties to even get Java like technology into Second Life, and both 
of those have proven incompatible from traditional web technology to 
paravirtualized worlds.

I wouldn't throw those out because they have a lot of enterprise work 
done on them, but we must realize that none of them are a single 
solution to make the best impact that is workable for all.

I noticed that Chris didn't say "paravirtual" when he said 
interoperability with "worlds" cause I know he would have gotten heat 
from Microsoft themselves. I appreciate the risk Chris took in his view.

Unless the traditional web technologists try to understand virtual world 
interoperability more, these concepts are going to go way over their 
head, and they'll be seen as to only bicker about the past and 
ironically cause an impediment.


-- 
Power to Change the Void
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20071103/f6f38973/attachment-0001.htm