Re: TGS driving VRML 2.0?

Dave Nadeau ([email protected])
Mon, 17 Apr 1995 17:18:44 -0700 (PDT)


On Mon, 17 Apr 1995, Mike Roberts wrote:

> Agreed, but I think we both agree that it is not the fact that the language is
> interpreted that provides the benefit, but because the transformative apsects of
> the language on the local system are restricted in some way ...

Absolutely. Figuring out how to restrict a language, yet still give it
sufficient power to do its thing is the principle challenge in doing a
behavior language for VRML. Just hooking in your favorite interpreted
or compiled language isn't sufficient.

For a very preliminary list of issues on this topic, check out our
behavior language page at the VRML Repository:
http://www.sdsc.edu/EnablingTech/Visualization/Behaviors/
Contributions are encouraged. Let's make this a killer list of the
issues a behavior language must address.

Dave Nadeau
San Diego Supercomputer Center