Re: VRML & URIs: Caching, Identifying, and Classifying Objects

Mark Waks ([email protected])
Tue, 30 May 95 14:34:57 EDT


Robert writes a rather fascinating message about using a component
model for browser software, with some pretty rigorous formal
underpinnings. It almost goes over my head, I'll admit, but I think
I grok what he's talking about. Pulling this down to the concrete,
though:
>BUT... this *is* the direction
>things are headed and when one is designing additional functionality for the
>Internet one should always strive for a generalized soloution even when a
>specific soloution would be easier to implement. This is why I believe that
>while caching shouldn't be crippled by an object specification, it doesn't
>belong *in* an object specification. As well, protocols shouldn't require
>cahcing but, rather, enable it.

Right; the key to remember is that I'm mainly addressing the "how do we
specify objects" issue. Caching is both a motivation and a side-effect,
but it isn't really the central question I'm looking at.

The fact is that VRML 1.0 addresses objects by URL. That's practical
and easy, but it has some *very* strong consequences about lots of
things, from transport to sharing to caching. The keyword scheme
attempts to at least weaken that tight 1-to-1 bonding, and will
hopefully have the consequence of making people think about these
issues. In the long run, I suspect that the sort of formal model
Robert describes is the way to go, but it isn't going to happen
today. Hopefully, keywords are a first step in the right direction.

-- Justin
Who is quite enjoying the responses to my
proposal; some of the discussion is very
interesting...

Random Quote du Jour:

"While I'd hardly say I'm morally bankrupt, you could probably make
a good case for me being in moral receivership."
-- Richard Sexton