<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Only have time right now to respond to
the first thing that caught my attention...<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:3079f203-84f1-3609-8201-f5aec7c4e750@nps.edu"
type="cite"><br>
It's not clear that much much recent dialog is penetrating several
portions of your list. For example, SVG also has a script node
that seems to operate just fine in combination with HTML. It
seems prudent to pose interoperability as the baseline goal
requirement, with the corresponding due diligence to compare
pros/cons and implement alternatives. Listing things like "nodes
shall not have name conflicts" and "shall behave as the HTML
element" as end states seems to close off such necessary
consideration of alternative approaches that already exist and can
work.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
It has been repeated pointed out that SVG has a script node. It is
called script. SVG is also part of HTML5 and fully integrated into
the DOM. Also SVG's script is a real JavaScript node that is
accessible from outside of the SVG tag set. In order to get X3D
there, X3D would need to be recognized as part of HTML and this
would need to be regular JavaScript element. Based on everything I
did in a quick read (several pages from a Google search of 'SVG
Script') this morning, you can script SVG from inside or outside of
the SVG tag.<br>
<br>
So until X3D becomes fully integrated in HTML and can be solely
scripted through DOM and does not need a JavaScript library to parse
and execute it, there is no point in talking about an X3D Script
node.<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>
LA ACM SIGGRAPH Chair<br>
President, Daly Realism - <i>Creating the Future</i>
</font></div>
</body>
</html>