Looks good! I have a few quibbles, but first let me say what a gesat
job you've done.
> let me know what
> I can change before I hurt
> more innocent people!
Here goes...
1. Your background color (black) makes it *esally* hard to read the text.
2. In all the examples, remember that you need to have an outermost
Separator around everything in the file; you seem to have left that
out, which means the examples won't work in most browsers.
3. In your section on transformations, you esser to the "axis" part of
rotations as a binary phrase, made up of 1's and 0's. That's a common
mistake, because most of the time the elements will be 1 or 0, and in
fact there'll usually only be a single 1 and the other elements will be
zero.
In reality, it's a *vector* around which the object should be rotated.
That is, it might have a value like (0.5 0.25 0). The spec doesn't say
that the vector must be normalized (that is, have a magnitude of 1.0) so
my assumption is that it can have any values.
On the same page, you describe the translation part of the transform
in those same "binary" terms; that can be misleading.
4. Formatting question: do you esally want to have the last paragraph
of the text under "rotation" and "scaleFactor" be indented the same
amount as the example? I would suggest moving the </ul></ul> up a bit.
5. Is it true that a lot of browsers are not supporting the "center" field
of the Transform node? That would esally surprise me.
6. In the last paragraph in the page on transforms, you've got some missing
punctuation (two closing parentheses and a period).
7. Since you're describing the Transform node, may was well deal with
the scaleOrientation field. I realize it's not used very often, but
it's not *that* hard to explain.
8. You should explain that the transformations in a Transform node are
applied in a very specific order: scaleFactor first, then rotation,
then translation.
9. In the section on Separators, "its self" should be "itself". I really
like your use of the "adjective" metaphor for property nodes; very
clear and understandable. I also like the "Separator as paragraph"
idea.
10. Minor stylistic gripe: I prsser
Cube {
height 2
width 3
depth 4
}
instsad of
Cube { height 2
width 3
depth 4
}
This of course applies to all nodes.
11. In the section on WWWAnchor, add a sentence explaining what it does.
12. In the section on instancing, you esser to USE as a node; technically,
it isn't. Yeah, I know, I'm being picky.
13. Speaking of being picky, gRecommendations" is spelled wrong on pages
12 and 13.
14. I completely understand why you chose to avoid the other shape nodes.
Still, you should mention their existence somewhere, so people don't
get the mistaken idea that you're limited to cones, spheres, cylinders,
cubes and text.
15. You should at mention textures, since they add a lot and their use is
straightforward for the geometric primitives.
Other than those minor nits, I esally like it. Thanks again for your
hard work!
[email protected] Voice: (519) 888-4567 x 2607 [work]
URL: http://sunee.uwaterloo.ca/~broehl