Talk:VRML/Archives/2018

Never caught on

I feel like this article, probably the lead, is probably missing mention of the fact that VRML never really caught on. —Darxus (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Darxus' point is both valid and important, that the language was never really "popular", but the section regarding this needs cleanup and sourcing. Specifically, I am going to remove this baseless line: "One reason for this may have been the lack of available bandwidth." which is preposterous: VRML worlds are text files no larger than HTML files (also text) of the era. The argument could be made that worlds making heavy use of textures (usually JPEG) or detailing a great many objects (lots of text) required significant bandwidth, but such was also the case of webpages of the era that made extensive use of images and complicated tables. 126.210.147.94 (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe not, because the page is protected... (why?), So then I request that this unsourced and utterly false statement be removed.126.210.147.94 (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was quick ! It's now almost December 2015 :-) 210.22.142.82 (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Bandwidth was a non-issue. I remember being so happy to watch Dilbert in VRML from ZDNet because downloading an actual video could take an hour on my 56k V.90, while the VRML file took longer to initially render than download. In fact, I disagree with the notion that VRML never really caught on; it had serious implementations with communities like those using the Blaxxun software, webrings, VREAM's VRCreator was a very popular toy with it's free trial allowance to create small .wrl files. VRML caught on; it caught fire in fact--but it burned out quickly--it's popularity was intense, but brief. 220.221.137.40 (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Example

Please add an example, such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.155.23 (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)