Re: PHIL: Silicon Graphics' VRML 2.0 ???

Stephen Chenney ([email protected])
Wed, 6 Dec 1995 23:44:22 -0800 (PST)

> Kuah Boon Teck wrote:
> >So, is Silicon Graphics announcing their support for a standard that is not
> >official yet, or is it trying to sell their solution as VRML 2.0?
>
> Contrary to how it may appear, I've been told that SGI is announcing
> support for an unofficial standard. I've also been told that a draft
> will be forthcoming from the VAG very soon.

I have no problem with SGI announcing an extended VRML that supports their
view of behaviours. However, I have a significant problem with it being
called VRML 2.0.

Worlds Inc call theirs VRML+. Maybe SGI can call theirs VRML++. But
VRML 2.0 suggests to the newcomer and layman that the proposal is endorsed
and final. And it isn't.

This is of course marketing driven. So SGI folks please don't flame me
for knocking your standard (I'll do that elsewhere). I hope you are
aware of the consequences of calling something VRML 2.0 that isn't.

> I suppose one of the advantages to being on the VAG is being able to
> announce support for things that aren't quite public yet. ;-)

Does that advantage make it worth the time and energy? I doubt that's it.

> James, who's been in support of VRML 2.0 since June.

Steve, who's just a little concerned at this point.

  • Next message: [email protected]: "ANNOUNCE: VRML 2.0 proposal from Microsoft graphics groups"
  • Previous message: Stephen Chenney: "Re: PHIL: Silicon Graphics' VRML 2.0 ???"
  • In reply to: James Waldrop: "Re: PHIL: Silicon Graphics' VRML 2.0 ???"
  • Next in thesad: James Waldrop: "Re: PHIL: Silicon Graphics' VRML 2.0 ???"