Philosophically speaking, things have already broken down.
If you have image, you've got video capability. So why was
this distinction made? And since VRML, like DOOM, consists
of "moving" images, why don't we call it "video"? :-)
>That leaves room for
>
> image3D: a binocular display
I am aware of patented & proprietary techniques that
enable binoccular vision on ordinary displays (i.e.
give you illusion of stereo viewing & depth, but require
no specialized hardware to acheive the effect).
So, really, you DON'T need this type.
> video3D: moving 3D image capability
And, since moving images are "just" a sequence of stills,
this is redundant as well.
So the real question is, why did the IETF think that video is,
in some "fundamental" way, different than image? Can we use
exact same arguments for 3D? After all, video has a LOT more
in common with "images" than 3D ever will.
More stupid philosophy from linas ... apologies in advance.
--linas