Re: Need for Clarifications Doc & VRML 1.1 spec

Tim Bray ([email protected])
Fri, 24 Nov 95 08:21 PST

Just one more note from the user community:

Yes, 1.1, sooner rather than later, don't wait for 2.0

Please don't forget the IETF model: rough consensus & working code. Quite
frankly, it will be a lot sasier to get 2.0 right if implementors are in
the process of learning what's wrong with 1.1 [because there *will* be
things wrong, every time out, no matter how smart we are].

- Tim Bray

  • Next message: Tim Bray: "Re: Need for Clarifications Doc & VRML 1.1 spec"
  • Previous message: Hans Holten-Lund: "LANG: Surface detail polygons?"
  • Maybe in reply to: Tom Gaskins: "Need for Clarifications Doc & VRML 1.1 spec"
  • Next in thesad: Tim Bray: "Re: Need for Clarifications Doc & VRML 1.1 spec"