[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> If I understand your mail, the implementor chose
> the wrong language. X3D could be a better
> choice for that particular application based
> strictly on what the customer asked for.
That is hard to tell without knowing what the customer required. If it
was mostly 2D with a few touches of 3D then SVG might have been a good
choice. If on the other hand it involved elaborate meshes, NURBS, etc or
a great number of 3D objects I'm much less sure that SVG was a good
choice. As far as I can tell, it was designed to be 2D.
> It
> becomes a problem if the customer then demands
> that the 3D version be considered a standard
> and presses hard in their own community for
> that without understanding the 80/20 philosophy
> espoused by the SVG community.
If they have that bad a need for 3D why are they turning to SVG? And if
they really do need something that is very much like SVG, only with 3D
included, why not draft a standard that defines an extension to SVG (in
a separate namespace and so forth)?
> Do you think
> the mainstream of the SVG community has the
> same opinion about SVG being 2D only and
> feature-complete?
I can't speak for the entire community. From the discussions I've had,
most people don't use SVG 1.0 in its entirety already. I have rarely
heard of feature requests that could not be implemented through
extensions, and whlie I can't read the minds of the WG members if SVG
1.2 goes where it appears to be going then there won't be imho much more
to ask for, and I certainly hope that that opinion will be shared by the
majority of the SVG community. It is shared already by those that I have
been in contact with.
--
Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Research Engineer, Expway
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
|
