Nigel Stewart wrote:

> > > Check out http://www.vrml.org/x3d.html, the working group
> > > who are figuring out how to migrate VRML to XML.
>
> > VRML seems reaaaaaaaaaly ugly. Especially things like needing to
> > actually create a visible object before being able to reuse it, etc.
>
> The semantics of VRML are not the point.  Eventhough VRML is not
> perfect for everything, it is at least a standard.  Is there no
> benefit in taking about spheres in the same way that VRML does?

Not sure. I'd have to get back up to speed with the spec again to find
out. But I was just wanting to mention that any VRML specific usage of
XML should be critically examined, as their design views may differ from
those used to create POV-Ray. Things may or may not map well.

--
"My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.

Post a reply to this message