At 12:57 PM 10/26/95, nelson18(_at_)llnl(_dot_)gov wrote:
But MESH supports 4D now, and VRML will support 4D "soon". Perhaps
3D and 4D? No, 3D/4D is probably the wrong word. Let's think
about something else.
It seems to me that dimension is crucial to interpreting the model type.
Making the dimension a parameter to the model type would be fine. But it
would be helpful if you do propose a formal syntax and what semantics you
expect to be attached to the syntax for describing the model part(s) that
you propose.
I don't necessarily object to including your arguments justifying why the
type is necessary in the RFC. But it is a bit frustrating to wade all thru
that just for Table 1 (which is mentioned for the first time in Appendix
III). It would be a good idea to point to the syntax summary in the
introduction of the document. My principal interest in this RFC would be
learning what I need to know to provide a means to connect the receiver of
a model/vrml message with something that can interpret the data contained
in that part. I really don't need a lesson on why different model types
exist.
john noerenberg
jwn2(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com
noerenberg.j (Applelink)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True nobility is exempt from fear
-- William Shakespeare, "Henry VI, Part II", Act IV, sc 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------