>To clarify, I think either comp.graphics.vrml, comp.lang.vrml, or
>comp.3d.vrml might be appropriate. Now that I've had time to calm down,
>comp.lang.vrml does indeed seem to be the most logical classification.
>Mike's chart of possibilities helped that.
What is this newsgroup going to be about? One of the key areas of discussion
is clearly going to be model design issues ("Anyone have URLs for
texture-mapped 3D models of Marina Sirtis I can put in my model?"), but
another, major area of discussion (certainly if it's anything like the
c.i.w.* groups) is end-user issues ("What's the best browser for viewing the
Paramount Voyager model").
If the groups scale at some point, comp.lang.vrml.end-users sounds
suspiciously close to comp.lang.c.apps.ms-word.
The name "VRML" is only descriptive from a designer standpoint. There isn't
a "VRSpace" or whatever to describe what a user is getting involved in.
There aren't any comp.?.html groups, because HTML isn't the point, the
application-- the WWW--is. Since "VRML" is the only name we have, we need to
plan this group to encompass all of these aspects. As such, comp.graphics is
clearly imperfect (the inclusion of sound is among the obvious objections)
while comp.infosystems.? aren't ideal either. Nevertheless, either scales
better.
--Andy
[email protected]