> On Tue, 18 Apr 1995, Chris Holt wrote:
>
> > 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>
>
>
It totally amazes me how many people have such a narrow view of the WWW
and VRML. The fact that you can create a self-contained Web on a CDROM in
VRML (or HTML) disconnected from the Wide World does not mean that
networking is not central to the technology. I can recall throwing
perfectly good 30K$ computers away 10 years ago when I could not network
them cost-effectively. "Computers", at least most of them, are
information generation/display machines and the ability to grab/deliver
new, updated content instantaneously from/to all over the globe is their
major power. VRML shows a lot of promise in helping to make the Internet
usable, by providing graphical navigation. I think it anyone who does not
agree that was/is it's major purpose should listen a little more closely
to Mr. Pesce. Barren virtual worlds disconnected from the WWW will be
just as useful as those computers I junked years ago.
I personally have no opinions about the Usenet hierarchy issue, but
strongly believe that the delivery of VRML over the Internet is much more
significant than the existence of a new/old standard modeling language and
that "WWW" is not just another text markup language, delivery protocol or
external reference syntax.
The WWW is a unifying concept that explicitly allows for multiple content
formats and delivery protocols, both existing and future. I am sure
everyone involved with WWW development understands and appreciates that
much of it's power derives from pre-existing protocols like Gopher, News
and FTP. It is the "integration" of these in WWW browsers and within
content, in HTML documents, that is the central concept (and achievement) of
the WWW.
Attempts to exploit and extend WWW technology, like VRML, are obviously
useful and needed. Attempts to deconstruct the WWW because existing
browsers, languages or protocols do not do everything desired are
counterproductive. Trying to create a virtual tribe independent of (or at
war with) the rest of the WWW community might be fun, but you will spend a
lot of time trying to re-invent networking technology, as evidenced by the
above VRTP suggestion.
The near-term importance of VRML is that it leverages existing graphics
and networking technology to quickly provide end users a powerful tool for
navigation. Hopefully, in the future it can be extended to support
interaction. Navigation and interaction, rather than just content and it's
delivery, were/are the main drivers for the WWW. That is why VRML is an
important component of WWW technology, IMHO.
Stephen A. Mattin
Delphi Internet Services Corporation
1030 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138