Actually, it's very easy to return a VRML document to a VRML browser and an
HTML document to an HTML browser for the *same* URL (i.e.,
http://www.vrml.org/), given that browser authors are doing the right thing
with Accept: headers. (HINT HINT) I also think "WWW" includes VRML and all
other media types, so I don't agree that we need a separate convention for
naming HTTP hosts that hold VRML pages.
Brian
On Wed, 14 Jun 1995, Mark Pesce wrote:
> Many of you are hard at work on VRML sites. For some of you, your primary
> "face" on the Web will be through VRML. We should, by convention, extend
> the DNS naming space to include VRML sites, the same way that DNS name space
> was extended to include WWW (that is, HTML) sites.
>
> For this reason, I propose using "vrml" as the prefix for a site which
> delivers MIME type x-world/x-vrml.
>
How about VRW for the 'Virtual Reality Web'...
> For example, http://vrml.vrml.org/ - which will be up before very long -
> will return a VRML document, not an HTML document. Or (as an example),
> Virtual Vegas could use vrml.virtualvegas.com as the VRML interface. It's
> entirely complementary with the www.foo.org convention used within the Web,
> and provides important human-context information. I can - in many
> situations - look at a URL and immediately know if it'll return HTML or VRML.
>
> (Yes, vrml.wired.com is a notable exception to this rule - we'll
remedy that.)
>
> Mark Pesce
> VRML List Moderator
>
>
I am a long time listener, first time poster...
I LOVE this stuff!!
-Paul :)