[X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D HTML5 meeting discussions:Declarative 3D interest group at W3C

[GLG]

I would not expect much backward compatibility in a web
browser by any stretch of the imagination. At least not for
the worlds I am involved with, which are extremely complex
and script intensive. Not withstanding the commendable
efforts of those involved, the day when full 3D worlds are
displayed directly in a browser is way ahead of us. Well
over a decade of development went into current X3D viewers,
and that will probably take just as long to get the same
functionality into web browsers, if it ever gets to the
level X3D viewers are today. I would actually see more
chances of that happening in the short to mid term if say,
an existing X3D viewer code were to be integrated into a web
browser. But, I digress, then again maybe not - who knows
what the future holds. 

What I would be looking for however, in terms of
'compatibility', is the ability for the two general methods
(browser vs viewer rendering) to coexist. This so that basic
X3D scenes are displayed in web browsers via one of the
proposed schemes. Then, when more capabilities are required,
X3D viewers take over in a seamless fashion to render the
more involved worlds. As in a step up from the simpler, more
accessible 3D into advanced functionality as required. The
X3D profile scheme is well suited for that. I believe this
type of scenario would be good for Web3D and the web, making
the core X3D profile easily accessible as an interim, until
the users install a full fledge viewer, or browser
improvements allow for extended profiles. I hope this is
exactly what is being worked on. If so then, bravo, you are
going in the right direction. What I am against is starting
from scratch with a new 3D format, overlooking the work that
has already been done during all these years, thinking that
extensive interactive 3D can be made simple. Rocket science
for everyone? I don't think so. If I wanted simple I'd go to
SL. I need the complex set of tools that X3D provides.
Please don't ask me to do brain surgery with a spoon.   

Cheers,
Lauren


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Philipp Slusallek [mailto:slusallek at cs.uni-
>saarland.de]
>Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 12:54 AM
>To: info at 3dnetproductions.com
>Cc: x3d-public at web3d.org
>Subject: Re: [X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D HTML5 meeting
>discussions:Declarative 3D interest group at W3C
>
>Hi,
>
>I fully agree that backward compatibility is important in
>general -- but
>I would not want to put backwards compatibility as our main
>objective.
>This is not a Web3D working group.
>
>Instead we should strive for the best possible 3D within
>the Web/HTML
>world going forward, but see that we can maintain as much
>compatibility
>as possible where it is necessary. This is where I am happy
>that we have
>Johannes on board, who has created X3DOM primarily with
>that aspect in
>mind. We already had quite some discussions on this topic.
>
>However, we should also look at things in perspective and
>be pragmatic:
>X3D's adoption compared to the Web as a whole is rather
>small (BTW, is
>there any reliable statistics available, like # of X3D
>files on the Web,
>size of the user community, use of feature set, or such?).
>
>BTW, backwards compatibility can come in many ways: from
>the ability to
>simply load X3D files (which ones? there are so many
>profiles and
>encodings) to a converter. Actually, Kristian's X3D to
>XML3D converter
>is already doing a pretty good job, while being only a side
>project so far.
>
>
>	Philipp
>
>Am 29.12.2010 22:12, schrieb GLG:
>> John A. Stewart wrote:
>>> 2) *somehow* keep the ability to *somehow* render older
>>> scenes so that users have continuity with their content
>>> over years and years.
>>>
>>
>> I tend to second that. I hope we are not looking to
>> cannibalize ourselves with yet another standard LOL. It
>is
>> good to see Chris M. back here after such a long time,
>but
>> if I am to get behind this idea/proposal and X3DOM or
>> anything else for that matter, I would be interested for
>the
>> eventual full implementation of existing standards. That
>may
>> or may not be possible in practice, but achieving
>> compatibility at the very least, so that 'old' worlds can
>> still link to new ones at a minimum. This, as a consensus
>of
>> the direction going forward; a certain persistence of
>> vision.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Lauren
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> X3D-Public mailing list
>> X3D-Public at web3d.org
>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org