What will be the favoured NOF format for Virtual Reality presentations? Would these fall outside of the requirement that an alternative format must be provided if a plug-in is required?
A few years ago VRML (Virtual Reality Markup Language) was thought to be the emerging standard for virtual reality. However VRML has failed to gain widescale market acceptance. VRML is now evolving. Its successor X3D will make use of XML to provide the syntax for 3D worlds. The development of X3D is being coordinated by the Web3D Consortium – see http://www.web3d.org/ A range of browser plugins to render X3D worlds are available, see the Web3D Consortium web site for details. The requirement that alternative format must be provided if a plug-in is required is intended primarily for accessibility purposes and to ensure that an open format is available if a project makes use of a proprietary format which requires a plugin. In the case of 3D visualisation it is recognised that a textual equivalent will probably not be appropriate and since X3D is an open standard which is currently accessible primarily through use of browser plugins, the use of these plugins is acceptable.
Related Questions
- What will be the favoured NOF format for Virtual Reality presentations? Would these fall outside of the requirement that an alternative format must be provided if a plug-in is required?
- Is defining the Agency list a requirement so that we can document outside agencies receiving presentations and making referrals?
- Was alternative public transport provided during the Belair line closure?
