raynmune thelord wrote:
> HELLO. i am late but i am here.
> 
> the idea of an POV-XML, i think is to take control of the scene for
> multiples reasons, enginering aplications, etc. Of course the pov syntax
> will be the same for every one. Why not think about an universal language
> for the 3d world like X3D. I never saw the x3d specification but the
> philosophy i think is ok.
> 

When will people understand that XML, and all derivatives, is
*DOCUMENT* oriented ? Not processing oriented !
If you are ready to drop all the algorithms from Pov SDL, then yes,
please go on and go back to DBKTrace 2.12...
It was a time were you had to write in C (or whatever) a code that
would generate the thousands sphere statement needed to make that
nice sea-shell...

I means, no #local, no #declare, not only of scalar, but also of
object, texture, and so!
No loop, no conditional statement...
I'm not even sure about animation...

Also, #include in XML are a PITA to perform, until you have a
portable network architecture for a valued-added repository.

I do not mind about an XML/X3D OUTPUT for povray (once the scene has
been parsed, just add the method to output that to a stream...), but
parsing... No Thanks. And for the output, I hope you have some
Multi-Tera-bytes drives availables.
(Do not talk about "compressed" XML/X3D... if you really want
compressed syntax, let's use the best one: PER-ASN.1, unaligned!
that's one is impressive, opened, but analysis by hand might take
you about two hours for a line once you're an expert of it...)

Last, about Universal 3D... there is no universal 3D usage... and 3D
 must be optimised, otherwise the volume of data is far too big.
Can you draw the conclusion by yourself ?

-- 
Eifersucht ist die Leidenschaft, die mit Eifer sucht, was Leiden
schafft.

Eco: -8.75 Soc: -6.72
http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Post a reply to this message