Re: Draft proposal of syntax for OO Extensions

Jean-Francis Balaguer (balaguer@artemedia.ch)
Mon, 26 May 1997 10:24:10 +0200

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Stephan Diehl: "Implementation"
Previous message: Jean-Francis Balaguer: "Re: On creating a new node from an existing node,"
Maybe in reply to: Stephan Diehl: "Draft proposal of syntax for OO Extensions"

Park SungWoo wrote:
>
> 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.
>

I believe that we need to be provocative. It is true that if we propose
chances to VRML we have little chances to have things accepted. But,
it does not mean that we cannot express ourselves to point to the
VRML community how messy VRML is. Some of the people in VRML think
they are so smart.

Next message: Stephan Diehl: "Implementation"
Previous message: Jean-Francis Balaguer: "Re: On creating a new node from an existing node,"
Maybe in reply to: Stephan Diehl: "Draft proposal of syntax for OO Extensions"