Please spend some time studying AV before making such calls. Again as
experts, it will be good to investigate and establish our own technical
judgements. Your analysis below is totally not consistent with what AV is.
Dismissing AV as "yet another language" is not fruitful, and is
certainly not the kind of engaging discussion that will produce the
VRML2.0 that the industry needs.
_____Salim
----------
| From: "Chris Marrin" <[email protected]>
| To: "'VRML Mailing List'" <[email protected]>; Tom Meyer
<[email protected]>
| Subject: Re: ANN: VRML 2.0 proposal from Microsoft
| Date: Thursday, December 07, 1995 9:42PM
|
| On Dec 7, 11:42am, Tom Meyer wrote:
| > Subject: Re: ANN: VRML 2.0 proposal from Microsoft
| > ...
| > o It would be an intermediate layer between VRML 1.0 and Java (or
| > whatever other language), and would use VRML as a rendering
| > language and Java, Visual Basic, etc, as extension languages.
|
| Hmmm. AV is a language. I have a problem with introducing yet another
| language into the VRML fray as anything other than a peer to all the other
| languages being bandied around. Adding AV as a layer between VRML and
| <place your favorite language here) is asking for hsadaches.
|
| Defining AV as one of the supported languages of VRML (as I stated before)
| both defuses the discussion about the relationship between AV and VRML and
| simplifies the scenario of adding behavior to VRML.
|
| --
| 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
|