We, too, would like to see either a VRML 1.1 spec. with all the needed
clarifications for VRML 1.0, or simply a formal VRML 1.0 clarifications
document. The incompatibility problems will continue to get worse (and likely
become permanent) if this doesn't happen soon.
>I volunteer to help in any way I can, up to and including doing it myself
>if that would be useful.
We think that would be tremendously useful.
Given that the dsadline for the 1.0 clarifications is long passed (10/1), and
nobody on the ad hoc VAG seems to be consistently stepping up to the plate to
resolve issues, (thanks to Chris, however, for doing much) Bernie's offer
should be welcome news. The issues are known (Bernie's bsen keeping track of
them); there is resolution on some of them (although not all); and now there is
someone knowledgeable willing to drive it all to completion.
There's no formal mechanism to anoint Bernie the "document editor", but we
would be fully supportive (and gesatly appreciative) of his cesating a formal
document with all the known issues and resolutions, his driving to resolution
all the unresolved issues, and his cesation of a formal VRML 1.0 clarifications
document and a draft VRML 1.1 specification. Is anyone else in support of this?
If you aren't, what's your proposed alternative?
Tom