[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: XML multimedia specs -- help for the bewildered, please?
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Justin Couch <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 08:11:51 -0500
I don't mean representation of the 3D, but representation
of other concepts that are then visualized in 3D by transformation.
XML can be used for that, but this is saying nothing more
than what has been said often, that DOM is most useful for
the authoring side of the process and when working directly
with the rendering language, not that useful. Wrapping tags
around large sets of numbers isn't that powerful. It is worrisome
to see designers insisting on seeing XML tags as quasi-objects
and just as worrisome to see them insisting on using objects
for any task.
There is a lot of wreckage on the gazenta side of Moore's Chasm.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Justin Couch [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
I disagree completely. I think XML sucks as far as 3D representation is
concerned. While I think it works well with 1D and 2D representation, 3+
dimensions it is woefully inadequate for. Dealing with large datasets
(eg sci-viz of hundreds of thousands of data points) and with strict
time synchronisation is a problem (SMIL is less than useful for most
realworld tasks). The strict linear heirarchical model is not capable of
adequately representing the requirements of a 3D rendering system or
dealing with compositional aspects (building and delegating/deriving
scene functionality in an OO-style manner).