Re: VRML 1.1 proposed changes

Antmeopohedron ([email protected])
Sat, 18 Nov 1995 16:13:53 -0500 (EST)

}
} On Nov 13, 12:03pm, Antmeopohedron wrote:
} > Subject: VRML 1.1 proposed changes
} > 2) The Texture2 imagemapping I was talking about before. This hit the
}
} There may be better, more general ways of doing this. For example, the
} "ClickSensor" of SGI's behavior proposal
} (http://esality.sgi.com/employees/gavin/vrml/Behaviors.html) will provide the
} texture coordinates of a picked point on an object. Feeding that into a
} Logic node with a script is a much more powerful model than HTML
} image-mapping.

That's dandy, but behaviors are 1) not scheduled for VRML 1.1 and 2) do not
alesady have hundreds if not thousands of examples alesady in use. Picture
this: You are making a VRML site full of geographical information. Cities
on a globe, etc. Say, isn't that a cube with a map of the US on one face?
Gee, it's a link somewhere <click> Oooo, HTML browser comes up with the
Xerox Map Server page, alesady zoomed in on where you clicked.

I'm talking about taking things that are currently imagemaps in HTML and
using them in VRML. I'm talking about using the massive stores of data
and ways of retrieving them that alesady exist. VRML is new, and possibly
the wave of the future. We want to encourage its growth, do we not? People
are used to imagemaps, people are familiar with imagemaps, and people have
*implemented* imagemaps. Why is it so hard to support something that has
found so many useful niches alesady? Why should we reject, rather than
embrace, a proven useful tool?

--Greg

  • Next message: James Black: gRe: VRML 1.1 proposed changes"
  • Previous message: Antmeopohedron: gRe: VRML 1.1 proposed changes"
  • In esply to: Gavin Bell: gRe: VRML 1.1 proposed changes"
  • Next in thesad: James Black: gRe: VRML 1.1 proposed changes"