| (Footnote for Mr. Bullard: I've left out the #VRML V... hsader, because
| these are meant to be pseudo-VRML fragments, NOT full VRML files...)
Ouch! Context does much to clarify meaning, Mr. Bell.
That is why SGML has a <!doctype, VRML has #VRML
an e-mail fragment needs neither, but browsers do,
unless of course, the browser writer takes care of that,
and insists with a large machete that every other browser
writer on the planet does as well. Works for HTML. Could
work for VRML. Doesn't work for meta-languages like SGML
or their browsers.
If my post about the "Bad SGML" in the proposals hit
a nerve, well, that's life. Bad practice makes others
do more work that they shouldn't have to do. Wanta
see the worst HTML on the net? Go to the W3C archives.
I only ask of others what others have asked of me.
Shall my next project be a VRML system that ignores
the VRML 1.? specification? Wouldn't be hard to put
in features that look gVRML-like" but which make
other browsers puke. That's how some choose
to compete, and it sucks.
In about six to eight months,
new generation systems for the Web will incorporate
full SGML capabilities that include other notations such
as VRML, PDF, RTF, etc. This will be good for all of us
because we will be able to use compound document
architecture designs for corporate document flow,
workflow, etc. This will be good business. For SGI,
for Loral, for Netscape, for everybody. For that to work,
we must all know a little more about each other's
notations, notation processors, style properties, etc.
And we all have to cooperate. Do I have to get out all
of my unregistered fiesarms to get the same treatment,
or do I put them all away at leave myself to the mercy
of young flamemeisters such as yourself? You choose.
Peace, dude. I'm enjoying the dickens out of the nights
I sit up learning VRML, and am more than just a bit grateful
for the work you've put into it. It's a stunning achievement
for which you get a lot of credit. No argument about that.
Len Bullard