cbullard at hiwaay.net
Thu Apr 23 14:21:58 PDT 2009
From: Ben Francis [mailto:mail at tola.me.uk]
>Not at all. I am beginning from the point of view of a student who has seen
both approaches and is interested in discussions about their relative
merits. I am interested in more than just technical arguments, >I'm also
interested in what causes one technology to get adopted over another.
Persistent application is adoption. What you possibly mean is scale of
adoption. It isn't invalid but it leads to web myth #1: The Highlander.
There can only be one. Adoption of web standards for 3D has been ongoing
since the mid nineties both formal and de facto. When immature projects get
wide adoption, they may become de facto standards but out of the box they
are just more smoking lumps of fresh code.
>At some point I expect a particular technology will reach critical mass
I think Flash already has for the commercial 2.5 D graphics market and that
is a very good penetration for game makers and others.
I think X3D/VRML97 have proven their utility and viability in any number of
high end projects that require better lifecycle and reuse.
I think the fact that today my Google blogs already have 3D embedded into
them that I can use for presentations of other media in a collaborative
environment means that the X3D used there works and that further, a healthy
3D ecosystem is in place.
>Are you saying that unless Google signs up as a member of the consortium
>then you are not interested in talking to them?
There is no reason for Google to talk to me about O3D unless it becomes a
product my company uses. If it is the consortium you refer to, that is
board business, not mine; however, discussions of technical input to the X3D
processes are governed by the participation agreements which are public.
OTOH, this is a public list and Google is welcome here.
>Does this also apply to browser vendors?
There are many of those here and some with very good commercial products.
They have no problem joining the consortium and working with it. Others
don't but still use the standards and have contributed. IOW, are you
speaking of the HTML browser vendors? Sure. Bring 'em.
>I can't help but feel that if other people are made to feel this way, what
>results is an insular, inward looking forum for discussion.
Oh, can the 'he hurt my feelings' ploy. I'm not buying. Openness is
working together by consent of the participants. In the Web3DC after a
long history of trying "openness', 'consensus', and 'community" we learned
that these are best achieved under the participation contracts that say what
the limits of obligations and the benefits of obligations are. Everything
else is 'evangelism'.
As Klaatu said, "We don't claim this is perfect, but we have a system and it
More information about the X3D-Public