my question of some time ago (which got no reply) was along a similar
line ; by introducing the isA field, the new node inherits the fields
from (multiple) parents. Therefore, should these be declared
(again) in the fields definition within the new node? I say they
should not - the whole point is that by declaring the node is based
on some standard type, any parser/run-time not capable of
understanding the new type can take some gui> as how to interpret
the node otherwise. For example
blueGlass {
isA "Material"
fields [ MFFloat refractiveIndex ]
diffuse 0 0 1
refractiveIndex 1.1
}
could be rendered opaque if a renderer cannot support refraction -
the Material fields are implied from the "isA" statement.
As an aside, I have implemented this in my VRML parser
Any comments?
> 3) The MFString type, while being a logical extension to the SF/MF
> convention, needs to be defined explicitly.
The name says it all. M=multiple, therefore MFString = multiple
strings, seperated by comma's and enclosed in [ ] as with all other
MFtypes
Hope that helps
Steve
=========================
Steve Ghee ( [email protected] )
Director of Technology
Division Ltd
19 Apex Court
Woodlands
Almondsbury
Bristol, UK
BS12 4JT
Tel : +44 1454 615554
Fax : +44 1454 615532
>>-------------------------------------<<