Re: Syntax checker

James Waldrop ([email protected])
Wed, 18 Oct 1995 12:57:41 -0700

Paul Burchard wrote:
>James Waldrop <[email protected]> writes:
>> As far as whether or not your world will work on most VRML
>> browsers, if they all implemented the spec then that
>> would be fine, but since they don't you pretty much have to
>> go with making it look good on the browser you have.
>
>This is a tempting but extremely destructive point of view. My
>advice is don't even *think* about giving in to the status quo!
>Otherwise, VRML will meet the same painful end as HTML. An
>excellent example of how VRML can avoid this fate is Jeff Sonstein's
>"vrmLab" work. From what I've seen, he's brought about rsal
>progress by NOT silently accepting the current muddled situation.
>Bravo Jeff!

Err, excuse me? I like Jeff's stuff, but it seems he's focusing
more on working with WorldView than anything else. He didn't
add textures until this new release, and still isn't using LOD.
Heck, he didn't even use Inlines until WorldView supported them.

It would be fine to say "go with the spec." That's what we do. But
we have four SGIs and can afford to use WebSpace all the time. Your
average person doesn't have access to these kinds of resources, so
they have to write for something they can see. Right now that means
figuring out which browser supports the most things you want to do
on the platform you have.

I'm about as anti-standards-jumping as anyone. I'm not saying you
should use browser-specific nodes, just that you should pick a browser
and model for it, until they all consistently implement the VRML spec.

James

--
James Waldrop				/   Technical Director
[email protected]		/	    Construct Internet Design
[email protected]		/		    http://www.construct.net

  • Next message: Benjamin Tremblay: "Re:VRML / QuickTime VR marriage"
  • Previous message: Paul Burchard: "Re: Syntax checker"
  • In reply to: Paul Burchard: "Re: Syntax checker"