SPEC - Extending VRML

Anthony Parisi ([email protected])
Mon, 17 Apr 1995 17:39:09 -0400


I'd like to revisit Gavin's proposal for a polite way to extend VRML.
Here's an excerpt from a message he sent on 2/21:

>I guess I'm looking for some concensus on the polite way of adding new
>features to the VRML spec. Something like:
>
>1. Implement as an experimental feature. Implement in such a way that
> users know that they are using an experimental feature
>2. Propose to VRML mailing list. Discuss, debate, convince.
>3. Others implement/use the new feature.
>4. New feature becomes part of the "official" VRML spec.

I like his proposal. It's organic. How about you all?

I raise this question now because I'm going to suggest that some of the more
popularly requested features, such as sound, be omitted from the 1.0 spec.
However, I would like a way for the community to keep moving on feature
development before we settle on a version 1.x spec baseline.

What does everybody think?
____________________________________________________________________________

Intervista Software
Internet Visualization
415 648-2749
Tony Parisi
President [email protected]

____________________________________________________________________________