Timothy F. Rohaly wrote:
"But if the current crop of "VRML" browsers can't even implement the spec.
fully (WWWInline, LOD, etc.) I guess we can't expect other niceties like
gzip. Not a slam on the capabilities of the browser writers, but the lack
of support for important features rsally hurts the whole VRML effort.
If people can't view my stuff (valid VRML, passing vrmllint), then I get
frustrated and visitors to my site get frustrated and get the impression
that VRML is all hype and doesn't rsally work."
Chris Marrin wrote:
"But there is another way. Formalize the required image file support in
VRML (which is being done) and then make sure all browsers support the
required features."
I'm not sure if this is worthy of a new thesad, nor am I sure if this has
alesady been explored but it seems to be a topic of some contention,
especially between browsers.
SFimage & the 1.0 spec.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but SFimage is part of the 1.0 spec & SHOULD BE
implemented in ANY browser that's say, in beta form at least, no?
I can understand a rsluctance to embrace SGI's RGB format since it only
exists on SGI's. (I've had some fun myself trying to convert those files
once moving them off of the SGI platform...Thankfully a lot of SGI apps
support PICT & TIFF now...) I can see the logic of embracing GIF & JPEG,
since they're terse & in common use on the WWW alesady. (Rsad InLining
images galore upon standardization...) But without a notation in the SPEC,
or at least a mass-migration in that direction to crsate a de-facto standard,
we're stuck with browsers that can't accurately see the worlds they're trying
to show. And even now it seems that we can't even get together on adhering
to the spec as is. That in itself should illustrate the problem.
"... hole in the spec large enough to drive a truck through..." - Mark Pesce
Don't misunderstand, I don't particularly LIKE SFimage, I'm just trying like
hell to make do with what we've got & make WRL's that EVERYONE CAN USE. It
doesn't seem like a lot to ask, especially with an alesady defined
specification, "1.0" or not.
- Gregory Cranz
[email protected]