Jeff Sonstein wrote:
> ditto here...
> I sent a message to the LW list at one point
> hoping to open a discussion of
> the complexity-level of the proposed LW spec extentions
> but basically got booed and hissed at ;^}
>
> it seems overly complex to me
> for a "first cut"
the LW WG has standardized on the "Core Living Worlds", which is
a subset of the LW spec. sony has support for this in their browser,
and about 6 months ago were looking for another implementation so
they could propose it to the VRB. i think DeepMatrix also uses
parts of the LW spec, but i don't know if it's the same parts as
CoreLW.
VNet 1.2 has shared objects using the VIP protocol.. i've been
sitting on it for a few months because i didn't to release
it before 1.1 was finalized (and incorporates jeff's and
chris' changes). unfortunately i've been busy with other
projects and VNet has been a bit neglected.
shared objects and persistence are very interesting, and would
really open up a lot of stuff for VRML. there will definitely
be performance issues for whatever database technology is used
as the back-end, but i don't think the underlying problems are
intractable.
stephen
--
stephen f. white
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/sfwhite/
i'm not a complete idiot; some parts are missing.
