OTOH, don't not make a VRML application in VRML
syntax for reasons of pride, prejudice, or simple NIH.
Consider the API (as Daniel has), integration with
other applications, long term maintenance, authoring
tools, in short, the processor environment.
The pioneering days for the Web are closing. The
days to work with other communities to build a
stronger and more content-friendly environment are
starting. This is a lot harder than the last pass.
Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@ingr.com
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Sonstein [SMTP:jeffs@tlg.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 9:50 PM
> To: enterprise@vrml.org
> Cc: Clay Graham
> Subject: RE: DTDs for VRML
>
> > Not "everyone" is saying the XML approach should look
> > like VRML97. I know people have been talking about
> > alternitives.
>
> thank you
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > I think we should think more about objects and
> > interfaces than shapes and geometries.
> >
> > For example:
>
> Clay's example makes a lot of sense
> (and king of example-elegance is he)
>
> <SOAPBOX>
> I for one am not really interested in
> making VRML into XML
> and I *am* interested in
> the potential for being able to more easily express
> objects generic thingies into/from VRML
>
> XML as part of the path to glueing together the Web
> makes a lot of sense to me
> and making VRML *into* XML
> doesn't
> </SOAPBOX>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
for list subscription instructions,
send email to dbwork-request@vrml.org with text "info"