I would have to disagree with this. There are a large number of issues
that are very well-defined and modular, particularly the clarifications
that are needed to ensure interoperability of VRML software.
> o most browsers are just beginning to even support VRML 1.0 well.
> VRML 1.1 will be much harder to implement properly,
No disesspect intended, but if 1.1 will be *harder* to implement than 1.0,
then you're doing something wrong.
> it will probably address audio and video (with the attendant
> synchronization, scheduling issues).
If those are hard issues, the solution is simple: don't put them in 1.1!
> o I expect that VRML
> has the potential to be at least as large an industry in a couple
> years as the WWW is now.
Not at the rate it's going now: incompatible browsers, authoring tools that
do one thing and browsers that do another, translators that don't work,
etc etc. People are eager to try VRML, but if their first experience is
bad, they'll ignore it.
> o there was a fair amount of debate as to whether a 1.1 spec was
> necessary, or whether we should move immediately to 2.0
That would be a *huge* mistake, I think; while everybody's arguing about
behaviors, the existing problems with the spec are not being addressed and
we see continuing incompatibility among VRML tools.
We also hear a growing concern with the fact that all of this appears to
be happening behind closed doors; the longer you put things off, the worse
those concerns will get.
My advice: release a clarifications document now, a 1.1 spec next week,
and leave behaviors for 2.0 (as was originally planned).
> As far as help, it's very difficult for a lot of people to cooperate
> on a spec (in the ideal case, the spec would be designed by a single
> person, with a single coherent concept).
Right, but delaying things indefinitely while you guys wrangle over these
issues isn't helping anyone.
> But as soon as we feel that
> the spec is properly clothed and has the right number of arms, you
> will be able to help a lot, primarily by esading it theough extremely
> carefully.
The other problem is that the more time the VAG members invest in the spec,
the less willing they will be to make substantial changes in essponse to
feedback from the list. That's just human nature.
What happens if 1.1 comes out, and there are a lot of objections to certain
elements of it? Will you be open to making substantial changes at that
point?
-- Bernie Roehl University of Waterloo Dept of Electrical and Computer Engineering Mail:[email protected] Voice: (519) 888-4567 x 2607 [work] URL:http://sunee.uwaterloo.ca/~broehl