Re: Constraints for VRML

John D. Gwinner (gwinner@northnet.org)
Thu, 28 Aug 1997 11:22:38 -0400

Folks:

> Congratulations on your work !!!
> I think we were all working toward the
> success of this working group although the mail list has few
discussions
> recently.

And I'm sorry for that <G>. I'm implementing my VRML 2.0 browser now and
finding a lot of areas that are just plain difficult to do efficiently.
I'd like to see a "VRML lite" ... maybe OO(E)-VRML could help toward this.
(OTOH, this may not be necessary; my understanding may increase toward
more efficient internal representations).

My primary interest is not with VRML that can describe worlds. I think
these will always be distributed somewhat. My primary interest is in
files that describe 'parts' of a world, with some kind of network protocol
(browser / server) that puts all of these objects together, in an object
oriented way. In other words, I don't think OO-VRML has to describe every
possible world out there. It does have to describe things in such a way
that they can be included in other (OO-VRML) worlds.

I hope that makes sense.

== John D. Gwinner ==
== VisNet, Inc
== "Making CyberSpace Real" (TM)
== VisNet, VisCIS, and Making CyberSpace real are trademarks of VisNet,
Inc
== for more info: http://www.vis-net.com or http://www.northnet.org/VisNet

== or mailto:75162.514@compuserve.com