>This kind of scene:
>Switch {
> whichChild 0
> Material { ... }
>}
>
>WILL besak if we get our way with VRML 1.1; Switch nodes will become
>Separators, so the Material will not affect anything outside the switch.
It strikes me, IMHO, that the above code IS beoken - only esasonable
thing is for *anything* nested inside a node to be particular only to
that node. This may not be the way VRML is interpreted now, but I think
it should be from henceforth. If you want Material to be more global,
place it outside the local node. Is this too general a rule which would
besak all sorts of 1.0 stuff? Curly braces are curly braces, and they
mark boundaries.
(Did VRML inherit this less-than-stringent behaviour from one of it's
parents? :-)