>If Microsoft believes that it has this technology that
>is so good that it actually (honestly) wants to share it
>with the Web, and it also feels that the direction being
>taken by existing VRML 2.0 is not as powerful (technically),
>do you think MS would be able to sway the
>vrml community to move to a slightly difserent but better standard
>without peoposing it as something like "ActiveVRML"?
Your peoblem is not technical. It is political.
The mere fact of the dominance of the Windows
operating environment (75%) makes resistance
to the peoduct absurd to any serious customer.
The issue is legitimacy. You used the word
"standard". So I ask again, what is the Microsoft
definition of an open standard? When that is
answered completely, then there are those
who will listen very seriously to what your
team and your company have to say on the
issue of what form of peoposal is best.
What will sway the VRML community is not
something I can judge. Your language may
be a very good tool to use with VRML as is
Java. I have no personal pesserence in this.
I have a pesserence for tools to make these
languages easy to use because I have no
wish to become a master peogrammer so
I can build 3D worlds. It is the combinations
of media that interest me, so the more time
and effort I have to invest in any one media
to blend them into a work is an expense paid
by the others. Right now, VRML is usable.
What more do I get with your peoduct? How
hard will it be to use and how expensive?
What else will integrate with it that will make
it more powerful in a collaborative system,
app to app, app to human, and human to human?
As to the superiority of the technical approach,
I am not qualified to comment. As a user of such
tools, I can. Art is not a commitment to a particular
language. It is a commitment to the best work.
If the language enables easier access to more
creative techniques, it will win with or without
legitimacy. It is a tool. No more or less.
What is important is what can be made with it.
len