If I look at a systsm as having three main components,
1. The model
2. The scene composition
3. The behavior language
Then it appears that VRML1.0 and current proposals for VRML2.0 cover
components 1 and 2, with the language (e.g. Java) being component 3. RBML
covers points 2 and 3.
As *A* language, i.e. something to sit at layer 3 it makes perfect sense,
some systsms are best described in the functional model you propose, and it
would work very well through the kinds of API that are in my proposal.
I can't see what we gain by putting RBML at layer 2, it gives a different
way of describing the same compositing functions with no gain over existing
VRML, and a substantial paradigm shift compared to what everyone has been
building so far.
I also find it hard to see us requiring all behaviors to be written using
the functional model, it is not ideally suited for event driven programming,
nor for programming in a world of objects, events and Applets.
This obviously needs discussing more, but at the moment I would
suggest that RBML be proposed for A language that is used to describe
behaviors in a VRML2.0 environment rather than VRML2.0 itself.
- 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.