[vos-d] [www-vrml] Re: [x3d-public] Wanna help the Mass Avatar Mash?

[Len Bullard]

Ok, I see what spooks you, thyme.   I won't attempt to answer for Justin's
call, but I do understand his position.  It is simply, IMO, from a business
perspective, not worth the expense of a lawsuit.  Now, the test mark if used
would be a different issue because that signifies conformance with the test
set.  The consortium would have to aggressively defend that.  If an X3D
document doesn't conform to the node specifications, that is one problem.
The validator will find that or the author will eyeballing the file.  The
problem of object conformance (behavioral fidelity) is where there are
grayer areas I think.  That is why these discussions and initiatives are so
vital at this time of course.   The conformance tests are the only formal
means I am aware of for testing an implementation and proofing the standard
language for ambiguity.  

Best of luck.

BTY, personal good news if I may:  I was hired by a small software firm last
week to do web development.  Doing the happy dance here at casaLaMammal!

len


From: owner-www-vrml at web3d.org [mailto:owner-www-vrml at web3d.org] On Behalf
Of thyme
 
I agree Len that X3D has to adapt and that specifications rarely get it 100%
right especially when implementations have never been fully tested by 
reality.

The exact words from Justin Couch were:

"These structures have very clearly defined behaviours and
there is no leeway in their interpretation or implementation. It is a
case of follow it or else be labelled as non-conformant. In the grand
scheme of things that could also potentially result in legal action over
the use of service marks, usage of the term "X3D" etc."

This was copied from the thread I saved from the public hanim list in 2004:

http://users.tpg.com.au/users/gilldawn/seamless3d/creaseAngleInterpretation.
html