Attached Link: http://www.web3d.org/fs_membersonly.htm

While it's sounding better, it's nowhwere near as nice as the new Web3D offerings from Adobe (Atmosphere), Macromedia (Shockwave3D) and Virtools. I can't tell you if it's looking better, as the "Gallery" at http://www.web3d.org/fs_membersonly.htm is "members only". So I have to pay $100 just to see if the stuff played in this standard looks any good!?!? Frankly, these folks at web3d.org don't know how to 'sell', aka get artists to use, a standard. What killed VRML wasn't just file size, after all, it was also, and perhaps mostly, the inability of the programmers to get artists to create compelling content in VRML. It looks to me like the web3d group is repeating that mistake again. Meanwhile, Adobe and Macromedia know how to make tools artists will use and distribute the plug-ins users will require. File size: No matter how you cut, compelling 3D content is big, and a 3D web will not arrive for general users until broadbanc arrives for general users, making the 2.5MB file sizes of the players not much of an issue. Note that the X3D article says that the "smallest" component of the standard is 300k. I'll bet that to get the same functionality you can get from Shockwave3D (gravity, physics, game programming, multiuser play & chat, etc.) you will have to download at least as much code as the Shockwave plug-in. Finally, relying on 'standards' means relying on Microsoft to support and implement them, while Adobe and Macromedia have more ability to work out partnerships with M$ (and sue M$ if it doesn't live up to them). While X3D might (someday) be an ok way to demonstrate rotating product models, I think that for the complex kinds of animations Poser makes, CL would be better to focus on working with Adobe and Macromedia (not to mention collision detection and gravity!).