Re: VRML 1.1 proposed changes

Chris Marrin ([email protected])
Mon, 13 Nov 1995 10:32:10 -0800

On Nov 13, 12:03pm, Antheopohedron wrote:
> Subject: VRML 1.1 proposed changes
> ...
>
> 2) The Texture2 imagemapping I was talking about before. This hit the
> mailing list, was supported briefly, and vanished like a drop in the
> bucket. I thought I had made a good case for it. Again, are there any
> objections or reasons why it is not feasible? Please seriously
consider
> it.

The better place for "imagemapping" to be done is in the WWWAnchor node,
not the Texture2 node. There was a proposal for this a while back, but I
don't think it is currently under consideration. It would simply add a
new enumeration (such as TEXTURE) to the map field. This would send the
texture coordinates rather than the object space point clicked on. This
would be sent in normalized coordinates (0..1) but these are easily
converted to image space to duplicate the HTML imagemap capability.

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


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

  • Next message: Mitra: gRe: VRML 1.1 proposed changes"
  • Previous message: Chris Marrin: gRe: Looking for WRL example files that uses Texture coords + other questions"
  • Maybe in reply to: Antheopohedron: "VRML 1.1 proposed changes"
  • Next in thesad: Antheopohedron: "Re: VRML 1.1 proposed changes"