Re: VRML is a Networking tech.

Andy Norris ([email protected])
Tue, 18 Apr 1995 11:52:33 -0400

At 11:10 AM 4/18/95, [email protected] wrote:
> VRML doesn't make progress on the graphics front, I think we all
> agree with that. But it also doesn't make progress on caching or
> sound. For example, the VRML spec doesn't say how 3D objects are
> to be cached. VRML does define interactivity, nobody else has done it
> before, not to a large extent anyway.
>
> A lot of what VRML does IV does (BTW: why is it that all of a sudden
> its a bad thing to relate the two and to point out that VRML borrowed
> a lot from IV? IV does a really good job of doing what it set out to do,
> I don't understand why people want to distance the two - personal view)
> "all" that it different is the notion of the magical URL.

While all of this may be valid for the 1.0 spec, many more things will be
defined in the 2.0 spec that should take it much further from being a
graphics language.

> I'd vote for comp.infosystems.vrml for all the reason's stated above.
> *BUT*, an even better place for it would be sci.virtual-worlds.vrml.

I think since the purpose of the newsgroup will be the specific implementation
of VRML (browsers, practical design issues, goals), it belongs in comp. Sci
is a better place to discuss other aspects of VR.

I still support comp.infosystems.vrml.

--Andy
[email protected]