[x3d-public] announce: X3D Java Scene Authoring Interface (SAI) open source, initial review release

[Joe D Williams]

> How about we look at abstract SAI, EcmaScript SAI Language Binding 
> and Java SAI Language Binding together on a working-group call 
> (ensuring that Dick is present) and decide on similar/common 
> structure for each specification?

Will these help. Out of data but I am willing to update if it will 
help.

http://www.hypermultimedia.com/x3d/Quick/SAIABSDEFS.htm

http://www.hypermultimedia.com/x3d/Quick/SAIDEFS.htm

Thanks,
Joe




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don Brutzman" <brutzman at nps.edu>
To: "Roy Walmsley" <roy.walmsley at ntlworld.com>; "'X3D Graphics public 
mailinglist'" <x3d-public at web3d.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: [x3d-public] announce: X3D Java Scene Authoring Interface 
(SAI) open source, initial review release


On 7/2/2016 8:31 AM, Roy Walmsley wrote:
> Don,
>
> This is great work done. Well done.

thank you Roy.

> You know me - can't help but be picky!

um, if the details weren't important, they wouldn't be the details. 
8)

> I looked at the  draft Annex B for the 19777-2 Java language 
> binding. I looked at the title of the annex, B.1.1 Introduction, and 
> then Table B.1 Topics. As you can see there is a mismatch.

OK... here are links to compare autogenerated annex with original 
specification annex.

Autogenerated: draft Annex B Node type interfaces
http://www.web3d.org/specifications/java/draftJavaLanguageBindingAnnexes/Part2/nodeTypeInterfaces.html

(former original Abstract node interfaces)
http://www.web3d.org/documents/specifications/19777-2/V3.0/Part2/abstracts.html

> I see two alternatives to resolve this:
>
> 1)      Change the title and the introduction to reflect the 
> contents.
>
> 2)      Separate the contents into smaller annexes. For example, 
> “Abstract type interfaces”,
>
> Now look at B.3 Auxiliary node type interfaces. And then the topics 
> within it. These are not node types. They would be better titled 
> ‘Auxiliary type interfaces’.
>
> I also think that field interfaces need to be first. Look at 19775, 
> 19776 series standards. Fields are derived before nodes, because all 
> nodes need fields, and only some fields need nodes.

These seem like reasonable improvements.  Usage of the terms nodes, 
interfaces and fields can be slippery - there is already a rename in 
the annex title pending.

However, since options (1) and (2) above each relate to specification 
document structure, am hesitating to make piecemeal improvements that 
might lead to other inconsistencies elsewhere/later.  Don't want to 
chase a problem by possibly pushing inconsistencies around.

How about we look at abstract SAI, EcmaScript SAI Language Binding and 
Java SAI Language Binding together on a working-group call (ensuring 
that Dick is present) and decide on similar/common structure for each 
specification?

Given the importance of getting this right, getting the specification 
organizations reconciled and documented in Mantis will help.  I can 
then easily change the original-spec titles in the autogenerated 
annexes to match.

all the best, Don
-- 
Don Brutzman  Naval Postgraduate School, Code USW/Br 
brutzman at nps.edu
Watkins 270,  MOVES Institute, Monterey CA 93943-5000 USA 
+1.831.656.2149
X3D graphics, virtual worlds, navy robotics 
http://faculty.nps.edu/brutzman

_______________________________________________
x3d-public mailing list
x3d-public at web3d.org
http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org