Kirk
[email protected]
----------
From: "Michael Sweet" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Newsgroups choice
Date: Tuesday, April 18, 1995 4:39PM
On Apr 18, 4:13pm, Brian Peter Thorsbro wrote:
> Subject: Newsgroups choice
> I seems that there are two alternatives
> for newgroups:
>
> comp.graphics.vrml
> comp.infosystems.vrml
>
> I vote for:
> comp.infosystems.vrml
>
> I do believe that vrml will develop to much more than
> graphics representation with time. So why go
> under graphics?? Better to use infosystems.
>
Yet doesn't VRML promise to go beyond the current "information systems" -
maybe we should just create 'comp.vrml'!
[on a more serious note]
The "comp.graphics" groups presently cover most aspects of computer displays,
sound, and interactive behavior. The "comp.infosystems" groups deal primarily
with static information that is sometimes interactive. Given the fact that
VRML will provide 3D graphics, text, sound, and other dynamic interaction.
Why should we place it under a hierarchy that only covers a small part of
VRML capabilities? Given that the hard part is going to be making VRML fast
on your brand X personal computer (DOS, Mac, or otherwise), it makes *much*
more sense to put it with the 'graphics' groups.
-- ______________________________________________________________________________Mike Sweet 2D & 3D Software for Easy Software Products (301) 994-0377 Silicon Graphics, Inc. 20778 Wolftrap Street [email protected] Workstations Lexington Park, MD 20653 http://www.easysw.com ______________________________________________________________________________