> >         I'm working on the assumption that hand-editing is
> >         not the only way to describe a 3D scene. 
> 
> So if I understand you correctly I will be able to describe my Pov scenes
> exactly as I do now without having to use TAGs and all of the other format
> styles that come with XML ?

	I think that POV script and an XML format should
	coexist.  Translation from XML to POV script is
	easy, going the other way depends on the design
	of the POV parser.

> If XML is implemented how will it be incorporated into POV-Ray. 

	The best way I can think of is to define an API
	between the core POV raytracer, which both 
	the pov script parser and the XML pov parser
	can use.

> If POV-Ray has to have two scene
> description languages how much baggage will it carry with it? 

	Not much, supporting XML is a matter of linking
	in a 3rd party libary and some code that interfaces
	to the theoretical POV API.  In all, a fraction of
	the complexity of the current POV script parser.

> Is there any parsing speed advantages with XML ? How much ?

	Maybe, maybe not.  Hard to say.  Interesting question.

> you really have to drag the information out of people if
> you want to find out what they are really talking about.

	Ken, I think I've been quite willing to explain
	the ideas.
 
> > > I think some of the changes being proposed
> > > jeopardize the ease of use I enjoy with the program
> If I have to hand code XML then yes they do !

	Nobody is going to force you to hand code XML.
	
	To me, this concern is something like a 
	bycycle owner being worried that if they
	get a car - it will be too heavy to pedal.
	One of the points of XML is allow 
	constrained, relevant, accurate and
	application specific editing tools.
 
> What polarization ? With as many people as we have using this
> program, for so many differnt reasons, there is no polarazation
> present at all. If we (we as in the pov world not ME) change
> POV-Ray to support XML to please you, will I, and the other hand
> coders be pleased ? 

	This is exactly what I'm talking about.  You are the
	prosecuter, I am the accused.  "You are hereby charged
	with attempting to subvert the usefulness of the
	POVray raytracer..."  Why not just discuss the 
	technical issues without getting emotive?

> Will the modelling programmers such as the
> author Moray be pleased with having to recode his entire program
> that he has been developing for 6 years supporting the current
> syntax? 

	The Moray author may in fact have their own 
	opinion, but I expect that if migration is
	optional they'd make a decision based on the
	usefulness of the feature.  I think it would
	be very advantagous for the Moray author to
	support XML - suddenly their market expands to
	include VRML modelling.

> Will all of the utility writters want to go back and
> rework their programs to use the new XML language? 

	They wouldn't have to, but they might be
	seduced by the new possibilities.

> Will I be able to render all of my older scenes? 

	That is entirely upto the guys who govern
	POV script.  

	XML scenes are much more likely to survive
	revisions because conversion can be
	automated.  (And because, XML is easy to
	parse, while POV script isn't)

>These are serious questions !

	Yes, and all the questions need to be asked.
	 
> If Pov changes, and I don't like it, I'll just quit
> using the program. Others may do the same.

	If POV doesn't change it will certainly
	die a slow painful death.  Each comment
	like this is another nail in the coffin.

--
Nigel Stewart (nig### [at] nigelscom)
Research Student, Software Developer
Y2K is the new millenium for the mathematically challenged.

Post a reply to this message