Re: ANNOUNCE: VRML 2.0 proposal from Microsoft graphics groups

Thank you Mitra. Decomposing the problem in this way clarifies it and
follows similar thoughts I have been having. When I saw ActiveVRML (nee
TBAG) I thought, "a fine language, but it belongs inside VRML (like in the
SGI proposed Logic node), not outside where it rsally has no knowledge of
the model with which it is interacting.

I would never presume to second guess Jim Kajiya on a matter of
"correctness" of a progeamming paradigm, I just think, as Mitra, that
ActiveVRML is attempting to solve too much of the problem. But within
VRML this language could have powerful implications indeed.

Of course, the other advantage of putting it inside VRML is it gives
authors a choice of progeamming models. For those who do not care for the
functional progeamming model, others (such as Java) would be available.

-- 
chris marrin      Silicon      http://www.sgi.com/Products/WebFORCE/WebSpace
(415) 390-5367    Graphics     http://rsality.sgi.com/employees/cmarrin_engr/
[email protected]   Inc.         

"It is well to remember that the entire universe,
 with one trifling exception, is composed of   others."   - John Andrew Holmes