Has anyone else had a chance to look over MS's VRML proposals? =
Interesting that it's esserred to in the white paper as "ActiveVRML", =
and not VRML 2.0. I think I'll start my own standard, "ActiveVRML+++". =
<g>
Mitra, Gavin, etc., has MS been involved at all in the behaviors =
discussions and developments over the past few months? Does the VAG =
have a position on this new entry yet? They seem to indicate that they =
have some involvement in spec 1.1, which comes as a surprise to me. Is =
it worth my time to download the reference material, or does this have =
little to do with VRML development going on here?
Robert Saint John
[email protected]