[X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D HTML5meetingdiscussions:Declarative 3D interest group at W3C

[Philipp Slusallek]

Hi Lauren,

I am not sure that these political debates are very helpful, but let me
try once more to at least get an open mind from you and I will shut up
in this thread afterwards.


I fully respect your believe that X3D is the best declarative technology
for 3D. It may be in the way it was designed. However consider the
following analogy (I know its not perfect but bear with me to get my
point across):

If you want to transports good across water you build some sort of ship.
If you want to do the same on land (Web), you build a truck. Different
environments demand different solutions and each one might be "best" in
its environment. Trying to use ships on land is not going to work too
well. While some design decisions will be very similar (building strong
structures to hold the goods), others (like the rudder) do not apply
well in a different context.

So to repeat my point from earlier: You can decide to stay on the water
and ignore the Web. You can try to convince people to build canals and
locks instead of streets (good luck with this!). You can try to convert
the ship into an amphibious truck by adding wheels (X3DOM), or you can
start with an existing car that drives well on land (Web technology) and
optimize it for transporting goods (XML3D).

As you know, I prefer starting by optimizing the car as I see it as the
best option in the long term. Most car technology people are developing
anyway (streets, filling stations, etc.) will immediately be useful for
trucks as well. Car drivers will have a very easy time to learn driving
truck, etc., etc. Yes, it also means that we cannot use the same ship
ports for loading trucks (a big advantage for the amphibious trucks!).
However, at the end it might still be worth designing trucks starting
with cars, in particular as cars are already a big business (much bigger
than ships). Others may see the situation differently and make other
decisions, though.


Here is the point I want to make: We have come to the ship yacht to
learn if there are ship building techniques that could help us build
better trucks. I am sure there are. Answers like "but ships are working
great, you really need to build a ship" are well understandable but not
very helpful.

I am still hoping to find some ship builders that would be willing to
engage with us in technical discussions, start looking into our early
blueprints (e.g. XML3D spec on xml3D.org), test drive some of the trucks
(also at xml3D.org), and show us where the break so we can fix them.

Along the way we may even invent containers that help us move the same
goods very easily on BOTH -- ships AND trucks :-).


	Philipp


Am 31.12.2010 11:46, schrieb GLG:
>> Things are not as easy as they sometimes seem to be.
> 
> 
> Philipp, This is our point exactly. Many of the things that
> are discussed now we have gone through in the past at one
> point or another. A lot of it is documented and available on
> the Web. The consensus of years of debate, arguments and
> compromises (by many more talented people) resulted in what
> we have today. If we have ROUTES and PROTOS ETC ETC it is
> because they were needed/wanted. Not everyone agrees to
> everything, but that never really happens anywhere.
> 
> It seems your main arguments against a lot of it is that, it
> cannot be done, or you cannot include it, or it will not
> work inside or together with HTML. Perhaps, the reason for
> this is that it doesn't belong there (Len said that too if
> you recall). I have never tried to put a movie inside a
> book, or, worse yet, a video game inside a newspaper or a
> magazine picture (as in a 3D media into a 2D container),
> because I know the chances of that working well are very
> small. I could rig a book with hardware and say "-look it
> works", but then I won't really have a book anymore. I will
> have a contortioned device masquerading as something that
> would be neither a good book nor a good video game. Or, I
> can put a hologram picture in a magazine and say "-look I
> have an interactive 3D mag" but do I, really?
> 
> Notwithstanding the validity or even the exact relevance of
> the above examples, or lack thereof (that is beside the
> point), and not meaning to be sarcastic either believe me, I
> am trying to represent what some of us are trying to say.
> You obviously have some time invested in XLM3D, but,
> honestly, that pales in comparison with what we have
> invested in X3D, and this by a very large margin. You talk
> about the large number of people already using this or that
> technology on the web, but there are not the 3D experts now
> are they? X3D was put together the way it is because that's
> what works best. You wouldn't want to get all of those
> internet users on the wrong path now do you? If all of the
> people who have contributed to X3D over the years would be
> here now at the same time, with all due respect, you would
> get buried, deep. XML3D is your baby and you love him, I can
> understand that for its own merits, innovation always has
> merits, but X3D is our grandchild, and we are very proud of
> him too. It wasn't always easy, but he's now a strong,
> reliable and mature individual (figuratively speaking of
> course).
> 
> To me, it would make a lot more sense to render HTML inside
> a 3D scene than a 3D scene inside HTML. X3D can already
> supports multimedia assets such as sounds and movies. How
> far are you planning to get with XML3D? Seeing HTML inside
> X3D is one of my dreams, not the other way around. But, if
> you insist, please develop support for a core X3D Profile
> with a clear upgrade path (to paraphrase Joe - but probably
> not going to happen, like Len said - that I wonder why, I
> really do). The standards have already been defined. There
> is no need to re-invent 3D. I can only support XML3D as a
> step up to X3D. That is the only way what you are doing can
> make sense to me. Otherwise, you're headed toward a dead end
> IMO, as from your own admission of HTML imposed limitations,
> and I don't need to go down that path. You can use a
> patchwork of components and try keeping things together for
> a while, but eventually you'll long for the real thing;
> better be ready.
> 
> As for WebGL, well it is what it is. That child may grow-up
> too someday. I am not asking to throw out the baby with the
> bath water. But, please, ensure that proper research is
> being done, as X3D is the elderly to look up to, and respect
> it deserves. I expect it to remain so for quite a
> foreseeable future. Thanks for coming to this list so we
> have an opportunity to express our opinions before the XG.
> That is truly appreciated.
> 
> I do not really have too many questions, probably more
> answers. Feel free to ask. You will always get help from
> this list. No, "things are not as easy as they sometimes
> seem to be", unless I'd hold a hologram card in my hand
> (hilarious or dead serious - take your pick). But, you
> obviously have much drive and are not likely to quit; your
> mind appears set on many things. All of this is only to be
> useful. So good luck. I hope the XG will learn X3D,
> experience it, and really think things through before going
> too far with anything. No one wants 3D to fall flat.
> 
> Now we can discuss the lack of adoption for 3D in general,
> but I'm getting tired. That maybe for another day. Let me
> just say that I am not convinced you have the right solution
> to this problem, maybe a partial solution at best. Many have
> tried and history has lessons to teach us here.  
> 
> Cheers,
> Lauren 
>