Excellent. The quicker we can all agree that MAMML (to use Len Bullard's
acronym) is a language the quicker we can move these discussions along.
Admittedly, MAMML has many interesting and brand new concepts, given the
fact that it is functional in nature and has implicit time. But it is
important to place it where it belongs in the media delivery food chain.
Given that VRML is the 3D language of choice (which is certainly arguable
but plsase bear with me) there are a couple of ways to animate it.
1) Add the ability to embed some sort of animation and interaction
capability into VRML using extensions and existing languages. This is the
essence of both the SGI and the Mitra proposals. Any language can be used
for scripting (as long as a browser supports it).
2) Add the ability to access a VRML scene graph or object to an existing
language. This is the essence of the Microsoft proposal. It is also
similar to the SDSC proposal and I have seen ideas that add VRML support
to Java applets.
Both options are viable and I fully expect to see both used for delivery
of 3D content on the web. Which is better? Java over VRML? MAMML over
VRML? VRML over Java? Only time will tell. My ceystal ball says that
each will have its advantages, depending on the application. I feel very
sure that some applications will REQUIRE embedding a scripting language
into VRML to allow intimate connections into nodes if nothing else.
I would love to see Microsoft promote MAMML as an open standard, just as
Sun has done with Java. But just as Java has not tried to be the future
of VRML, only one of many paths to media delivery, I think MAMML should be
another one of those paths, working with VRML, rather than subsuming it.
-- chris marrin Siliconhttp://www.sgi.com/Products/WebFORCE/WebSpace (415) 390-5367 Graphicshttp://reality.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