Ok, I see what spooks you, thyme. I won't attempt to answer for Justin's call, but I do understand his position. It is simply, IMO, from a business perspective, not worth the expense of a lawsuit. Now, the test mark if used would be a different issue because that signifies conformance with the test set. The consortium would have to aggressively defend that. If an X3D document doesn't conform to the node specifications, that is one problem. The validator will find that or the author will eyeballing the file. The problem of object conformance (behavioral fidelity) is where there are grayer areas I think. That is why these discussions and initiatives are so vital at this time of course. The conformance tests are the only formal means I am aware of for testing an implementation and proofing the standard language for ambiguity.
Best of luck. BTY, personal good news if I may: I was hired by a small software firm last week to do web development. Doing the happy dance here at casaLaMammal! len From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of thyme I agree Len that X3D has to adapt and that specifications rarely get it 100% right especially when implementations have never been fully tested by reality. The exact words from Justin Couch were: "These structures have very clearly defined behaviours and there is no leeway in their interpretation or implementation. It is a case of follow it or else be labelled as non-conformant. In the grand scheme of things that could also potentially result in legal action over the use of service marks, usage of the term "X3D" etc." This was copied from the thread I saved from the public hanim list in 2004: http://users.tpg.com.au/users/gilldawn/seamless3d/creaseAngleInterpretation. html _______________________________________________ vos-d mailing list [email protected] http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
