>Conformance is essential this early in the game. Looks like there is a
>*strong* need for a "VRMLlint" - any takers?
This should not be difficult to derive from QvLib. My experience indicates
that unknown node types are easy to pick out of the traversal. (I am *not*
volunteering myself.)
>Obviously the way to ensure that one company doesn't railroad the process
>will be to make the 1.0 specification an IETF RFC. The next IETF meeting is
>in Stockholm, and not even I have an expense account that will let me travel
>there, but I'll be at the Dallas one in December.
I am working with W3C (here in Cambridge, MA) over the next month to get the
final 1.0 specification incorporated into their set of WWW specification
documents, along with a CD-ROM containing our source code libraries, etc.
This will be the base WWW reference "document", and will represent the
definitive VRML specification.
Mark Pesce
VRML List Moderator