<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/14/2016 8:17 AM, doug sanden
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CY1PR14MB0567B3693B664EA8C519FF1BB6CC0@CY1PR14MB0567.namprd14.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Joe,
If x3dom node definitions are not proprietary -if they are web3d.org- then why doesn't Leonard just snapshot x3dom node definitions and call it version 4?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Doug,<br>
<br>
X3DOM is separately licensed under MIT and GNU - making it open
source. <br>
<br>
The nodes, fields, and design of the internals is open, but not
standard.<br>
<br>
It is not my option to create V4, that is the provance of the X3D WG
with direction from the Web3D Consortium BOD.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CY1PR14MB0567B3693B664EA8C519FF1BB6CC0@CY1PR14MB0567.namprd14.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
-Doug
more..
PS if there's a difference between dom and classic, I would prefer a separate numerical series for the DOM vs Classic, since cobweb can do classic in a browser, and we may need more revisions of classic.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
That is one of the big questions for the X3D WG. To some extent,
differences can be handled via Profiles. The question is if there
are differences that cannot be handled via profiles, what should be
done?<br>
<br>
<br>
Leonard Daly<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CY1PR14MB0567B3693B664EA8C519FF1BB6CC0@CY1PR14MB0567.namprd14.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
ie
classic v3.4 -> v4 v5 ...
dom v1.0 ... or start dom at 4, and call it dom 4
OR
classic v1 v2 v3 v4 v5
dom .............\ v4 v5
more..
4 hypotheses for delay in v4/dom:
H0: proprietary blockage
H1: resistance from classic supporters not wanting their numerical series cut off
H2: desire by standards designers to add some value, beyond copy and pasting, and no broad support for it
H3: confusion over what is standardizable wrt dom: node definitions vs. browser functionality. I gather the standard would cover the node definitions as seen by exporters, but not how wrapped in the html file for a particular dom-based browser implemention.
_______________________________________________
x3d-public mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:x3d-public@web3d.org">x3d-public@web3d.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org">http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<font class="tahoma,arial,helvetica san serif" color="#333366">
<font size="+1"><b>Leonard Daly</b></font><br>
3D Systems & Cloud Consultant<br>
X3D Co-Chair on Sabbatical<br>
LA ACM SIGGRAPH Chair<br>
President, Daly Realism - <i>Creating the Future</i>
</font></div>
</body>
</html>