> This is exactly the sort of thinking I cannot abide by. Why should we
> halt all progress on a system just because a certain segment of the
> potential users have a history of doing things differently? Why should we
> bend over backward to accomodate a group of people who may not even be
> aware that we are trying to help them?
If VRML is going anywhere, and it has Text, it will be i18n capable.
(i18n is internationalization - i 18 letters n.)
> We need to stop thinking in terms of perfection in design, or technical
> "utopia". There is no such thing. Progress is a process. First we write
> lame little imagination ticklers like Doom, and then build on what we
> learn. We cannot allow ourselves to be hobbled by the idea that VR and 3D
> have to be perfectly designed, with all the loose ends discussed to death
> before we can write one line of code. Think, Design, Model, Build,
> Evaluate, and then go back to Thinking. If this cycle stops inside any
> phase, the system ceases to function, and progress halts. There is death
> in that.
That is true for the evolution of technology. However, there is another
force at
work. VRML is becoming a standard. That, by definition, means parts of it
do get frozen. The parts that get frozen should be designed for the future,
how
far into the future defines the lifespan of VRML.
-Jan