Re: More questions.

Mark Waks (
Tue, 6 Dec 94 10:49:42 EST

Time for a strongly dissenting opinion. Al wrote:

>> A note, vrml is really a 3D specification language with URLs thrown in.
>> It doesn't have much to do with VR.

I don't concur at all. From the very beginning, this project has been
about the intersection of the Web with visualization technology -- in a
word, cyberspace. Look at the original proposals; look at Mark Pesce's
discussions. The concept underlying the project is far more than just
showing images -- it's about embodying the Web with a sense of "space".

People seem to be all caught up in the limitations of VRML 1.0. Folks,
review the history a little. This is a first cut -- nothing more, and
it has never been billed as more. It's intended as a rudimentary first
tool so that we can start looking at this stuff for real, and figuring
out hands-on what it *should* look and feel like. No one's under any
illusions that the spec is complete for the long run; it's an
experimental trial that will yield some more informed opinions and
ideas. And it was deliberately cut down to minimums so that we could
get something implemented fast. Remember the survey a couple of months
ago? It was all about defining priorities, so that we could figure out
that subset. Most of the other capabilities haven't been flushed,
they're just waiting for a later version.

Also, there seems to be a *lot* of confusion about the interactivity.
Remember, a great deal is *deliberately* being left to the Browsers.
Just as HTML doesn't define a page rigorously, neither does VRML
define interaction rigorously. That's left up to the Browsers, which
can implement more or less powerful interaction as they are capable.
Again, remember that one of the primary models here is the Web, and

-- Justin

Random Quote du Jour:

"Rule one in staying sane on USENET: Don't take yourself too seriously.
Rule two: avoid those that do."
-- chuq