I find this persuasive, except that I would like to suggest
comp.infosystems.vrml as an alternative for purely practical reasons: the
c.i.w.* newsgroups are a mess, with people crossposting "How do I use
Netscape" to all the groups. I don't want to drop VRML in the middle of
that.
--Andy
[email protected]
---------------------------------------
>I whole-heartedly agree with Mark Pesce's previous post pushing
>for comp.infosystems.www.vrml. His points emphasize how the
>comp.graphics portion of vrml is just a small element of the big
>picture. Putting vrml in comp.graphics would be like putting word
>processors in a spell-checker category. There are many other features
>that would provide equal motivation for other groups, including
>audio, which has been a hot topic lately. Therefore, it has as much
>right to be in an audio group as a graphics group. However, audio
>has nothing to to with graphics, and graphics has nothing to do with
>audio. But, they are both part of the vrml big picture.
>
>Did that make any sense? Maybe time for more coffee. Anyways,
>my vote is for comp.infosystems.www.vrml.
>
>Carl
>[email protected]
>==================================
>no sig - too pissed after paying taxes to think of one
>==================================
>
>
>