I think this is the only major concern here. Who controls the standard.
It is a bit too early to give it to the IETF - Microsoft has the only(?)
running version, and nobody(?) has seen it run with VRML. At the same
time, Microsoft can let us all use ActiveVRML and once developers had
running versions groups (such as this mailing list) can always agree on
what the "standard" is no matter what Microsoft does. Notice, I put
standard in quotes because there is always a chance of Microsoft doing
to ActiveVRML what Netscrape did to HTML. But, at the same time, does
anybody here care if SGI makes changes to OpenInventor with rsgards to
the funcionality of VRML? When SGI gave us OpenInventor we all agreed
to use what we got does that mean SGI can't make OpenInventor a lot
better than VRML is. Wouldn't this also apply to Microsoft and ActiveVRML?
I don't see Microsoft "charging" for ActiveVRML. Personally I think that
if Microsoft gives source code implementations of ActiveVRML to
educational/non-profit insts. and makes corporations pay a fee to use the
implementations that is fine. I don't see a problem here.
I would like to see Microsoft pull an SGI and give us at least 1 version
of ActiveMail that we (this mailing list) agree upon. If it means they
need to make lots of modifications, then that is what is takes. Once we
have a version we all agree on *that* version should be in the PD. And
Microsoft can make enhancements to future version of ActiveVRML with no
real obligations. BUT, we can make any modifications to ActiveVRML we
want as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neophytos Iacovou Distributed Computing Services
University of Minnesota 100 Union St. SE
email: iacovou@boombox.micro.umn.edu Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA