I'm sorry, but if I understand what you're saying, I simply don't
buy it. We've been through the standards process -- a rather rough
and ready one, to be sure, but that is, frankly, what most of them
are like at the beginning. The fact is that OOGL is *not* VRML.
Open Inventor isn't VRML either, but it's a good deal closer --
the standard is essentially an enhanced subset. OOGL is OOGL, and
it has its strengths, but calling it VRML is simply intellectually
dishonest, not to mention confusing as hell to the people who don't
know about the history of the past year's effort.
No, we haven't had a standard approved by the IETF yet. On the other
hand, the IETF hasn't yet approved the standard definition of "URL"
either, but there isn't a broad range of difference about what that
means. There was a clear consensus (albeit certainly not a unanimous
one), as long as six months ago, that Open Inventor was the way we
were going, and it is the way we *have* gone. Trying to deny that at
this stage just looks foolish.
Mind, I'm none too happy with SGI/TGS at the moment, either --
contrary to their denials, the reports seem to be indicating that
they *are* pulling a Netscape, whether intentionally or no. That's
an important issue, which we need to start hammering on now,
because while I'm moderately comfortable with the notion of
inheriting most or all of Inventor's *static* properties, I'm
not *nearly* as sanguine about picking up its *dynamic* ones.
'Course, I'm not at all certain that the motion commands in
Open Inventor really *are* dynamic in any meaningful way, but
that's an argument for another list...
-- Justin
Who really needs to get his hands on a
good Java overview *now*, so I can
understand the arguments a little
better...
Random Quote du Jour:
Re: The Heraldic Inquisition
"Name, rank und blazon!!! Vasssss? No naaaaame? No aaaaarms?"
"Vee have *vays* uff makink you register!"
"You VILL haff arms, and you vill LIKE it!"
-- branwynn ottersby