1)
I think the syntax in the draft reflects very well all
discussion points so far.
Minor note : does the order in <field> <name> <type> have a special
meaning ???
>
> I think the functions in paths replace the Eventhandlers,
> that's why they don't appear in the syntax.
> I also did not include the PARENT keyword,
> I think we should discuss this one and leave
> it as a future extension. Jean-Francis suggested
> a clever way to implement it, but this would only
> work, if we would write a new browser for our
> extensions, it could not be implemented on
> top of VRML 2.0.
>
2)
The idea of PARENT is difficult to implement on top of VRML 2.0.
Hence, if our proposal was to extend VRML 2.0, your approach
is naturally reasonable.
However, as others indicated, such an idea could be implemented without
much difficulty if we would not stick to VRML 2.0.
I am sorry for raising this point again. In my opinion, we could
write two proposals, one of which would be for extending VRML 2.0,
and the other of which would be for adding new ideas to VRML 2.0.
The syntax in the second proposal might not allow us to develop
a VRML 2.0 converter. The implementation would include only a
parser and a run-time execution system without browsing capability, in
which we can simulate the change of field values or others.
As you know, there are some good ideas which could be incorporated into
VRML 2.0. If allowed, I will write and implement the second proposal
with your advice. Please, give your opinion on this matter.
I fear that my suggestion may discourage Stephan's sincere efforts.
Thank you.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sungwoo Park, (Castle-Help Naive) homepage : http://compiler.kaist.ac.kr/~gladius e-mail : gladius@compiler.kaist.ac.kr - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -