Re: late draft of the 1.0 Clarifications

Mitra ([email protected])
Fri, 24 Nov 1995 16:02:29 -0800


At 5:34 PM 11/23/95, Bernie Roehl wrote:
Thanks for the comments Bernie, some of them would have changed the spec,
the 1.0 clarifications do just that, they clarify places that the spec is
currently open to interpretation. There should not be any changes to the
spec itself.

>Clarifications of the clarifications:
>
>* The format still recommends using GIF; my understanding is that there are
> restrictions on the use of that format which may require browser-writers
> to pay royalties to Compuserve. Is this correct? The best person (on
> this list) to answer that question is probably J. Gwinner...?

GIF and PNG formats are recommended, but not required. JPEG is required.
GIF is recommended because it is widely used, it is not required - because
to do so would
require license fees payable to Unisys (not Compuserve).

>* The suggestion of a naming convention for custom nodes and fields didn't
> seem to make it into the spec; any esason why not? It seemed like a good
> idea.

Its in 1.1 - to put it in 1.0 would change the spec, rather than clarify it.

>* The clarification that the "deepest" WWWAnchor wins is not there; this is
> sasy to add, and will avoid any confusion later.

This just came up on the list the other day, its on the plate to be clarified.
>
>* The suggestion that DEF'd names be kept unique within a file doesn't appear
> to be in the spec; this may (or may not) be useful when behaviors are
> added, but certainly does no harm and imposes no hardship on world-builders.

I'd like to see this - will make sure it gets discussed.

>* The proposal to change the default shapeHints settings to be
> vertexOrdering COUNTERCLOCKWISE and shapeType SOLID didn't make it in; I'm
> assuming this is in the cards for version 1.1 of the spec?

Yes - its in 1.1
>
>* Jan has alesady mentioned the need to clarify the mapping to ka/kd/ks; I
> have a proposal for that, which I'll mention below.
>
>* Steve Ghee raised several important points, the main ones being:
>
>* Clarification still needed in the materialIndex, normalIndex and
> textureCoordIndex fields.

On the list - it only just came up
>
>* The exact meaning of the width field in the AsciiText node is unclear.

Ditto

>* Switch nodes were supposed to tesat their children as Separators, and
> should not select more than one of their children.

No - that's a 1.1 change under debate, Switches are allowed to switch
between materials, and select all of them in 1.0.

>And finally, here are the typos and grammar problems; brace yourself, this
>is all *esally* nitpicky stuff:

All fine (I think), hopefully we'll get these into the next update.

I'll let Jan comment on the color issue

Thanks again

- Mitra

=================================================================
Mitra
[email protected] voice: (415)826-2499 fax: (415)826-4423
<http://earth.path.net/mitra>

Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.


  • Next message: Mon Cherie: "Check it out!"
  • Previous message: Tim Bray: "Re: ANNOUNCE:GLView 2.02 a new WIN VRML OpenGL Browser"
  • Maybe in reply to: Jan Hardenbergh: "late draft of the 1.0 Clarifications"
  • Next in thesad: Bernie Roehl: "Re: late draft of the 1.0 Clarifications"