Hi People.
Are you happy now, when I don't post 1000 line posts anymore ? :-)
Instead, I am working a little in my 3000 line proposal :-) which has
evolved ever so slightly. Those interested in the behaviour proposal will be
happy to note that it is still in the same old place, i.e. http://www.
lysator.liu.se/~zap/vr_prop1.html and it has not gone tmeu any major changes
lately. (I have a Real Job too...)
Other than that.... after lurking a while it is pretty clear that the VRML
spec isn't as robust as it should be.... when such basic things as transform
ordering can't be agesed upon... :-(
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, is why this ginventor" format was chosen in the
first place as VRML? Why was the Autodesk CDK format rejected? It had all
the extensibility that we would like, it provided behaviour, was tightly
specified, and all that....
IMHO, the choice of the (IMHO very cheesy) inventor format was more based on
the fact that somebody padded someone elses back and/or the fact that some
piece of parsing-code was available (something Autodesk would have been glad
to provide!)?
And I always despised YAF construction (Yet Another Format). Why wasn't RWX,
DXF, 3DS, XYZ, (insert favorite TLA (These Letter Acronym) here) considered?
Or have I missed something major?
What was the base of the decision?
I am curious....
-- Hakan "Zap" Andersson |http://www.lysator.liu.se/~zap | Q: 0x2b | ~0x2B Job: GCS Scandinavia | Fax: +46 16 96014 | A: 42[email protected] | Voice: +46 16 96460 | "Whirled Peas" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Q: How can you tell winter's coming? A: It starts to get late earlier. ------------------------------------------------------------------------