Re: Re[2]: WWWlogical idea

Anthony Parisi (
Tue, 13 Dec 1994 18:46:20 -0800 (PST)

> McQ asks:
> >My question: Would it be appropriate to specify a suite of "standard local
> >objects" within the specification? Then the browser would be responsible for
> >providing anything that appears on the list of standard local objects -- SLOs :)
> I'd be inclined not to. For one thing, I *strongly* doubt that the folks
> doing the spec'ing are going to accurately guess what the popular objects
> are -- one beauty of the Web is the organic way in which things can get
> popular, quite suddenly and unexpectedly. Also, we want to allow for
> very simple, low-weight browsers. So unless these objects were *extremely*
> basic (in which case, they'd probably be pretty dull), I don't see the
> point. The number of objects that a browser wants locally could easily
> vary by several orders of magnitude from system to system...

Good point.

> On the other hand, if we wound up implementing this idea, I would
> *definitely* want to create a browser that can read from CD-ROM, with
> an eye towards eventually issuing a disk chock-full of useful toys...

My idea exactly.

But it sounds like we'll need a "name registry" to handle the
identification, i.e. naming of standard objects such as "utah-teapot" and
"bay-window" (apologies to architects/interior designers reading the
list). In this way a VRML scene can be published which instances such
objects and allows the browser to optimize bandwidth, or provide a
personalized view of an object (a *key* feature, according to some human
factors folk) by using locally defined rendering descriptions. Naturally,
such scenes should also define fallback URLS in case the named object
can't be found locally.

tony parisi "In cyberspace, no one can hear you type"