<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>I would like the opinion of the readers of these lists for the
following.</p>
<p>A variant of Fraunhofer's SRC format has been standardized as
glTF. It is a very minor difference from the SRC that is supported
by X3DOM. X3DOM uses the node ExternalGeometry (see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://x3dom.org/src/">http://x3dom.org/src/</a> and
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://doc.x3dom.org/author/Geometry3D/ExternalGeometry.html">http://doc.x3dom.org/author/Geometry3D/ExternalGeometry.html</a>) in
the Geometry3D component. This node fits in as the 'geometry'
child of the Shape node. <br>
</p>
<p>SRC includes texture (optional), so it may be better as a
replacement for the Shape node
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.web3d.org/documents/specifications/19775-1/V3.3/Part01/components/shape.html#Shape">http://www.web3d.org/documents/specifications/19775-1/V3.3/Part01/components/shape.html#Shape</a>).</p>
<p>The two questions I have for these groups are:</p>
<p>1) What is the correct (or better) structure for support of glTF
-- as the 'geometry' field or as a Shape node?</p>
<p>2) If the better location is as a Shape node, what is your
opinion of adding a URL field. If this field is present, then all
other children would be ignored and the specified content
downloaded and used for geometry and texture (if present)?<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<font class="tahoma,arial,helvetica san serif" color="#333366">
<font size="+1"><b>Leonard Daly</b></font><br>
X3D Co-Chair<br>
Cloud Consultant<br>
President, Daly Realism - <i>Creating the Future</i>
</font></div>
</body>
</html>