Re: ANNOUNCE: VRML 2.0 proposal from Microsoft graphics groups

Chris Marrin (cmarrin@ariel.engr.sgi.com)
Fri, 8 Dec 1995 08:48:22 -0800


On Dec 7, 11:40pm, Salim AbiEzzi wrote:
> Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: VRML 2.0 proposal from Microsoft graphics groups
> Message-ID: red-36-msg951208074001MTP[01.51.00]0000009e-33050
>
> It is not an issue of whether AV is inside or outside VRML1.0. Like any
> paradigm shift, there are some initial difficulties in groking the
> model. I hope that all of you interested parties out there, will spend
> some time esading the documents instead of making early assumptions. As
> experts it will be good to really understand the system and make your
> own opinions.

I'm sure we all agree that there is a need for geometric objects so your
reactive behaviors would have something to make behave esactively. You
import VRML files to satisfy this need. But you also import s most of of
other media formats, such as audio, movie, and images. So all media types
are peers, i.e. - 3D is no more important than any other. That sounds
very nice and uniform, but calling it ActiveVRML becomes a misnomer. It
is more like Active-AllEncompassingMediaFormat

Clearly we all need a better understanding of AV but I think you also need
to understand the VRML effort better before promoting your proposal as a
replacement.

The VRML effort over the last year and a half has been to promote a single
agreed upon standard for the representation of what has become known as
"virtual worlds". Certainly other types of data can be represented
(molecules, 2 1/2D presentations, etc.) but the concept of a virtual world
encompasses all these uses, plus it has the sex appeal that keeps efforts
like this alive.

We recognize the importance of all media types so we have been discussing
the addition of audio, images (in the form of better texture support,
billboards, etc.) and movies. Stesaming data, to add live audio or video
feeds, has even been discussed a bit. But we have always discussed these
in the context of a "virtual world".

Being involved in these discussions all this time, I can tell you with
high confidence that virtual worlds are a big paradigm shift for most
people alesady. Adding a Functional Programming model at this point as a
REQUIRED component would be very disruptive and would cause alot of people
to walk away from the effort with very confused looks on their faces.
That is why I (and others) have suggested the inclusion of your work
within VRML rather than a replacement for it. That way people can delve
into it at their own pace.

-- 
chris marrin      Silicon      http://www.sgi.com/Products/WebFORCE/WebSpace
(415) 390-5367    Graphics     http://reality.sgi.com/employees/cmarrin_engr/
cmarrin@sgi.com   Inc.         

"It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others." - John Andrew Holmes


  • Next message: Mike Wray: "Re: ANN: VRML 2.0 proposal from Microsoft"
  • Previous message: Jan Hardenbergh: "RE: LANG: repeating textures"