> From: Paul Burchard <[email protected]>
> > [email protected] (Mark D. Pesce) writes:
>
> > > I believe that the right place in the USENET hierarchy is
> > > comp.infosystems.www.vrml
>
> > Bold. Rad. And right on the mark.
>
> I found the argument for comp.infosystems.vrml convincing.
As did I. What if a VRML space is distributed by Sony on a CD, for home
(vice "networked") use? What if Sears puts a collage of their stores into
a VRML space and distributes it via (non-Internet) Cable TV networks to
set-top network boxes, later to be browsed by customers? It seems to me
that many of the future uses of VRML will have nothing to do with WWW,
just as Stock Market quotes have nothing to do with WWW until you put them
on a Web page.
VRML can mimic WWW in its use of links, and scenes can be put on a Web
page. Other than that, it seems to me that VRML and WWW are two separate
things.
VRML is a whole 'nother world.
Hmmm. The above argument implies that we need VRTP (our own version of
HTTP). Does anyone think that's the case?
---
Andrew C. Esh mailto:[email protected]
Computer Network Technology [email protected] (finger for PGP key)
6500 Wedgwood Road 612.550.8000 (main)
Maple Grove MN 55311 612.550.8229 (direct)
<A HREF="http://www.mtn.org/~andrewes">ACE Home Page</A>