One application category conspicuously absent in the X3D comments and
documents I've seen is storytelling.
I don't think this is cause for alarm. I do think it is a good reason to
think about viewing X3D not as a storytelling medium but as one component
of a storytelling medium.
Here's another way to look at it. Which model is better:
1. A browser loaded with big plugins and players, each of which handles a
complex combination of audio and graphics (shockwave, realplayer, VRML, MPEG)
2. A browser loaded with composable and synchronizable components, each of
which handles a specific medium (audio, 2D graphics, 3D graphics, controls)
#1 is what we have now. It seems to me that #2 is a much better option.
Rather than have a dozen mostly mediocre audio (for instance)
implementations you'd have one really good one. Ditto for all the other
capabilities. #2 would be especially appropriate for storytelling, which
can potentially make use of any combination of media.
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.
Michael
