Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> Same for VRML and X3D. It has route structures. I tend to think of it as > a network of objects, not a hierarchy. X3D has a hierarchy in the > XML encoding because it has to have a root node. In the VRML, encoding, > it doesn't. USE nodes provide, define one use everywhere functionality. > There is a hierarchy of objects with some inheritance of properties, and > to nest finite coordinate spaces. X3D like VRML likes a one pass parse. I was actually thinking of bringing up a very similar example in SVG. In SVG 1.1 you have a <use> element that can refer by id to a defined graphic primitive. Certain attributes of the <use> are passed on to the conceptual copy of the primitive (say a polyline). While this cuts down on repeated data throughout the SVG document it is wildly complex to process. One must understand the notion of a conceptual graphic, a shadow tree, and a realized version of the document when rendered. This is exacerbated by interactivity-- when an object that was <use>d is clicked you must find the conceptual node correlating to the position clicked, then find the corresponding <use> element and ultimately pass a third interface to the conceptual primitive using an SVGElementInstance. Once you have all of that figured out you then have to worry about mutation events in either the <use> or the element to which the <use> is referring (i.e., both ends of the relationship must be monitored for changes). This ultimately leads to a lot of jumping around in the processing. It is confusing at best. When working with <use> elements the first question I ask of document creators is "Do you *really* need them". I wasn't sure exactly how to tie this back to Roger's post-- so thanks Len for giving me the stepping stone. Cheers, Jeff Rafter
|
