> I am worried that if we try to come up with a definitive "VR language," no
> one will come to our party. It is unrealistic to assume that engineers will
> give up their favorite development platforms in order to develop
> applications in VRML if a better alternative exists. Some will for purely
> academic interest, but, when push comes to shove, the best development tools
> will always win out. We have seen that an API approach is feasible. This
> fact will not go away. I rather suggest that we should create a VRML that
> is capable of coordinating and orchestrating API-based modules, allowing us
> to embrace API advances without painting ourselves into a corner with a
> language that predefines the possible range of capabilities of simulations.
Develop applications in VRML? That makes no sense. VRML will not be a
language in the sense that C or Pascal is a language. It will be a
textual (and possibly binary) way of representing 3D scenes (and possibly
behaviors or sounds or ...) the charter of this group is not create a
new programming language. It seems that the word "language" seems to be
the point of confusion here. Think of it instead as "file format" and
you will understand a bit more where I am comming from.
Michael and I have been going in circles with each other on this subject
for a few days now. Anyone else want to contribute, or should be just
take this to private e-mail?
Kevin