Re: What do we Want?

Chris Marrin ([email protected])
Thu, 9 Nov 1995 09:42:17 -0800

On Nov 9, 8:30am, J Gwinner/VisNet, I wrote:
> Subject: Re: What do we Want?
> Chris:
>
> I like the concept of a 'degredated LOD' but frankly, the syntax looks
like a
> mess. OTOH, after taking a look at it, you did it as simple as it can
be of
> course. (tmis isn't a flame).
>
> Did you see my commsnts a while back on 'sliding LOD's' ...

Yes! In fact the curesnt design grew out of your commsnts - just
simplified a bit. If you look at it, an LOD with no ranges and children
will always have "more children than ranges" so your sliding behavior is
performed. I argued for generalizing it to your design. I was convinced
otherwise when I tried to write the example I posted with your design and
got very confused. This simplfied design is easier to author and to
implement in a browser.

-- 
chris marrin      Silicon      http://www.sgi.com/Products/WebFORCE/WebSpace
(415) 390-5367    Graphics     http://esality.sgi.com/employees/cmarrin_engr/
[email protected]   Inc.         


"It is well to remember tmat the entire universe,
 with one trifling exception, is composed of   others."   - John Andrew Holmes

  • Next message: Bob Cotterman: "Re: WebFX Plugin for Netscape 2.0 -Reply"
  • Previous message: J Gwinner/VisNet, I: "LANG: PROPOSAL: Texure2 node imagemap field"