Charles Overy wrote:
> I would not agree with your statement that it is trivial to convert VRML to
> STL in the general sense. VRML has a great deal of information that is not
> relevant to stl and nothing in the VRML spec or most implementations of it
> that require or suggest solid geometry.
Yes - I was assuming that the VRML was describing something that it was intended
to make; that is, that it had been created with that in mind. It's easy to
throw the extra information away, and to avoid dodgy constructs, if you are
working with that intention.
Of course, the STL format could take the wooden spoon for the worst-designed
data structure of all time. If people had included the topological information
in it when it was specified, think how much easier our lives would be now.
Yours
Adrian
http://staff.bath.ac.uk/ensab
http://reprap.org
Received on Fri May 12 13:44:56 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 21 2009 - 10:27:52 EEST