> On Tue, 18 Apr 1995, Andrew C. Esh wrote:
...
> > As did I. What if a VRML space is distributed by Sony on a CD, for home
> > (vice "networked") use? What if Sears puts a collage of their stores into
> > a VRML space and distributes it via (non-Internet) Cable TV networks to
> > set-top network boxes, later to be browsed by customers? It seems to me
> > that many of the future uses of VRML will have nothing to do with WWW,
> > just as Stock Market quotes have nothing to do with WWW until you put them
> > on a Web page.
> >
> > VRML can mimic WWW in its use of links, and scenes can be put on a Web
> > page. Other than that, it seems to me that VRML and WWW are two separate
> > things.
> >
> > VRML is a whole 'nother world.
> >
> > Hmmm. The above argument implies that we need VRTP (our own version of
> > HTTP). Does anyone think that's the case?
[You don't need to quote signatures. I know who I am]
> It totally amazes me how many people have such a narrow view of the WWW
> and VRML. The fact that you can create a self-contained Web on a CDROM in
> VRML (or HTML) disconnected from the Wide World does not mean that
> networking is not central to the technology.
When did I say Web? I said VRML. I suggested putting a stand-alone VRML
space on a CD-ROM. VRML doesn't automatically mean that the contained
links have to point to someplace that can only be reached through the net.
> I can recall throwing
> perfectly good 30K$ computers away 10 years ago when I could not network
> them cost-effectively.
That is because you had an interest in networking them. What has that got
to do with VR? I had to replace my wife's car recently. Boy did that cost
a lot! Therefore: VRML should cost a lot! Geez!
> "Computers", at least most of them, are
> information generation/display machines and the ability to grab/deliver
> new, updated content instantaneously from/to all over the globe is their
> major power. VRML shows a lot of promise in helping to make the Internet
> usable, by providing graphical navigation.
If VRML is what it will take to make the Internet usable, then the same
can be said about Operating Systems. How many 3D VR Operating systems do
you know of? VRML will be great as a navigation tool. Right now we have
to live with reality. The Internet is NOT pervasive. I does not reach
enough households to comprise a mass market. CD-ROM drives are in many
more places that are willing to buy VR material than the sort of network
connection which will support a VR interface. If you think modems will
fit the bitt, then try running an X-Window remote display session through
one some time. Then realize that a VR interface will take an order of
magnitude more bandwidth. Now tell me how many paying households have
that kind of connection.
> I think it anyone who does not
> agree that was/is it's major purpose should listen a little more closely
> to Mr. Pesce.
I have greta respect for Mark Pesce. He would not allow himself to get
cornered by the idea that VR HAS to be connected to the net.
> Barren virtual worlds disconnected from the WWW will be
> just as useful as those computers I junked years ago.
Like Myst? I don't think so. There isn't a single URL link in Myst, and
they have sold thousands of copies to paying customers. The analogy
doesn't hold water.
> I personally have no opinions about the Usenet hierarchy issue, but
> strongly believe that the delivery of VRML over the Internet is much more
> significant than the existence of a new/old standard modeling language and
> that "WWW" is not just another text markup language, delivery protocol or
> external reference syntax.
>
> The WWW is a unifying concept that explicitly allows for multiple content
> formats and delivery protocols, both existing and future. I am sure
> everyone involved with WWW development understands and appreciates that
> much of it's power derives from pre-existing protocols like Gopher, News
> and FTP. It is the "integration" of these in WWW browsers and within
> content, in HTML documents, that is the central concept (and achievement) of
> the WWW.
What has either of the above two paragraphs have to do with VR? You're
using the success of the Web to justify support for HTML. All HTML is is
Hyper Text. The URLs can travel the net, but a system of pages could also
be put on a CD-ROM, and tied together with "file://" URLs. How can any of
the foregoing be used as an argument to keep VRML tied to the Web?
> Attempts to exploit and extend WWW technology, like VRML, are obviously
> useful and needed. Attempts to deconstruct the WWW because existing
> browsers, languages or protocols do not do everything desired are
> counterproductive. Trying to create a virtual tribe independent of (or at
> war with) the rest of the WWW community might be fun, but you will spend a
> lot of time trying to re-invent networking technology, as evidenced by the
> above VRTP suggestion.
So we should hold VR captive on the net in order to justify building the
Web? Is that what you're trying to say?
> The near-term importance of VRML is that it leverages existing graphics
> and networking technology to quickly provide end users a powerful tool for
> navigation.
Navigation of what? Why only the Net? Why only Navigation? Why not Product
Catalogs? Why not simple exploration of an environment? Why not travel,
news, or history, all of which can be distributed on a CD-ROM? Whose is
the view that is "narrow"?
> Hopefully, in the future it can be extended to support
> interaction. Navigation and interaction, rather than just content and it's
> delivery, were/are the main drivers for the WWW. That is why VRML is an
> important component of WWW technology, IMHO.
Your logic escapes me. Since VRML is a graphics language, and it is meant
to be viewed, shouldn't the above logic also lead us to conclude that it
should be tied to Head Mounted Displays, and should only be available
from vendors who also sell HMDs? Where is the tie in to the Net? What is
it that *REQUIRES* VRML to be on the net? You haven't proved that point.
VRML is not owned by WWW, and it has many uses outside of "navigation" and
"interaction". Many of those uses do not require a net connection. Since
there are many customers who can use VRML, and who do not have a high
bandwidth net connection, I am saying we should extend VRML to them as
well. The larger the customer base, that faster the mass market system
will develop. Until it reaches that status, VR will be just another "toy".
> Stephen A. Mattin
> Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Delphi? Maybe this is the real reason for the message: You want to keep
VRML tied up on the network so you can charge people to get at it. Isn't
that the case? You don't derive any revenue from CD-ROMs, do you?
My point in all of the above is to show that VRML can exist outside the
Internet, and needs to do so as a product. I am in no way against using
VRML on the net, and I believe that is the place where the best
applications of VRML will occur. It's just that it's not the ONLY place.
--- Andrew C. Esh mailto:andrew_esh@cnt.com Computer Network Technology andrewes@mtn.org (finger for PGP key) 6500 Wedgwood Road 612.550.8000 (main) Maple Grove MN 55311 612.550.8229 (direct) <A HREF="http://www.mtn.org/~andrewes">ACE Home Page</A>