Forwarded message:
> From [email protected] Mon Apr 17 15:49:17 1995
> (this is not going to the list - I've already put far to much stuff there for
> one day !)
>
> On Apr 17, 3:18pm, Kevin Goldsmith wrote:
>
> > People are starting to lean towards putting some extremely complex stuff
> > in VRML. I think this is a mistake. Even if people are not hand
> > authoring VRML environments, people are going to have to create them. I
> > think that we want a myriad of different viewers avaiable to people. To
> > make VRML super heavy-weight will be a big problem for general acceptance.
>
> I think you are absolutly right here.
>
> > On Behaviours. "Behaviours" are a short term solution. Think "scripting
> > language," now think "simple scripting language," now think "simple,
> > safe, scripting language." Putting behaviours and engines ala inventor
> > into the scenegraphs are a short term win and a long term lose. We need
> > to think larger, but not too much larger. People may not hand author
> > geometry (although I contend that some people won't have much choice),
> > but people will almost certainly hand author scripts. And browsers will
> > have to interpret them, and browsers will also have to make sure that the
> > scripts are deleting all the files.
>
> But behaviours in inlined URLs and event maps in the scene graphs ? (ie, this
> event goes to this external interaction engine) ??
>
Maybe. I didn't tie in the external scripts from the way that
they would be tied into the scene. Your suggestion is a good one.
> > Not a solid description of what that scripting system should be, but an
> > opinion on what it shouldn't be.
>
> -- Mike
>
- Kevin