Re: DTDs for VRML

Bullard, Claude L (clbullar@ingr.com)
Wed, 16 Dec 1998 08:21:00 -0600

Yes. That is implementation. I am
uncertain that making VRML more of
a programming language and less of
a declarative language is the right way
to go, but I can be convinced.

Again, if people want to put non-XML
languages inside XML applications, consider
the <[CDATA[ ]> approach or you
will have parsing problems with reserved
characters.

As for the DTD, I agree that the
geometry object as container is more straightforward
as you presented it. The DTD
I presented is a middle way keeps the
current VRML97 tree without redundant
nodes.

<TRANSFORM>
<BOX>
</BOX>
<TRANSFORM>
<CONE>
</CONE>
</TRANSFORM>
<TRANSFORM name="Cone_XFORM">
<CONE>
</CONE>
</TRANSFORM>

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@ingr.com

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clay Graham [SMTP:cyber23@best.com]
>
> The issue seems to me primarily is the mapping to the scripting object and
>
> the DOM (as well as the way the xml looks), because with my approach you
> can do something like:
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
for list subscription instructions,
send email to dbwork-request@vrml.org with text "info"