From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) (clbullar_at_ingr.com)
Date: 17 February 1999
That is because as an application category, it is not very
well defined or understood. We only have a handful of
VRML samples to look at, each based on different
metaphorical models and emphasizing different parts of
the current browser/plugin framework. Still, the fact that
it is not mentioned is why I started this thread on this
list. That way, at least, we can ask. You are witnessing
the fragmentation of the community along application
lines over a core component. That isn't a bad thing.
Still, it will be up to each application community to
work toward getting the other components. This
will have an effect on the vendors as they try to
make the core service-oriented and each app
community vies to optimize those services for its
needs. This isn't a bad thing either.
Yet I think you are right that removing the redundancy of components will make this application easier to do. I am tired of seeing the midi window from the browser popup or struggling with bizarre controls inside the VRML window. I want the scripts for the 3D to look like the scripts in the HTML without too much EAI in the way.
Len
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael St. Hippolyte [SMTP:mash_at_trapezium.com]
> One application category conspicuously absent in the X3D comments and
> documents I've seen is storytelling.
>
> Here's another way to look at it. Which model is better:
>
> 2. A browser loaded with composable and synchronizable components, each of
> which handles a specific medium (audio, 2D graphics, 3D graphics,
> controls)
>
> The hard part of course is the "composable and synchronizable" part. But
> it seems to me that this is a question that must be settled between all
> the
> media, not in a single medium such as 3D graphics.
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8 : 28 November 2004 CST