Re: WWWlogical idea

Scott Nelson (
Tue, 13 Dec 1994 11:19:23 -0800

The 'logical construction' is probably more in line with
our "TinkerToy" builder. You describe the scene using
TinkerToy building statements (really) and it builds
the scene automatically. Thus, it contains a library
of objects (five) and takes care of the details

It was written:

1. to make it easier to make simple node and peg objects
so that the user doesn't have to worry about 3D
coordinate transforms -- just say what peg goes
into which holes.

2. as a part of our http2tt / tt2vrml package
which will make a 3D VRML nodal tree of an http
site. And since it's VRML, you can click on the
various nodes to go there (assuming that you
have a real VRML viewer).

The tt2vrml converter is up to version 0.6 and will be
freely available once it goes through our official
review and release procedure. The http2tt converter
effort is much simplier and will start after we
get the tt2vrml converter to be more stable.

The same kind of effort would apply to many logical
construction projects, but I agree that that should not
be included in VRML. VRML does make a nice post
processor though, but some other code needs to do the
grunt work.

Scott Nelson

On Dec 13, 1:36pm, Jan Hardenbergh wrote:
> Subject: Re: WWWlogical idea
>> Al suggests the WWWlogical node, and a concept of "hints" combined with
>> comparatively vague object definitions, sort of as a corresponding
>> concept to the way HTML does business.
>The notion of describing a scene using keywords and having it created
>is a good idea...
>However, I do not think it should be part of VRML and I know it should not
>be in VRML 1.0.
> -Jan
>-- End of excerpt from Jan Hardenbergh


+---------------------------------------------------------+ |Scott D. Nelson B131 Rm2074 | |Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory | |7000 East Ave., L-153 | |Livermore CA 94550 | +---------------------------------------------------------+