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

[GLG]

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


Nooo, ships and trains. Trucks don't have enough backbone to
transport the goods. You'd need a whole lot of inefficient
trucks, and then the goods would not as easily go back on a
ship when needed. The idea of containers is intriguing
though. I'd be willing to explore that a little, but, from
your analogy, amphibious trains is what I'd like to see,
because if we are limited to land (trucks or trains) then we
have the same problem in reverse. I believe putting things
in perspective is helpful. We don't want to start building
parts until we know what type of vehicle should be built.
Please, in no way am I suggesting that you "shut up", I have
already thanked you for your presence here. As for the
"technical discussions", I am sure they will follow once we
agree on a basic design. We cannot talk about building an
engine when we have not yet defined the type of vehicle. If
your mind is set on trucks and I don't need a truck, why
then would I begin helping you engineer one? Seeing things
with an open mind goes both ways. 

Happy new year,
Lauren




>-----Original Message-----
>From: Philipp Slusallek [mailto:slusallek at cs.uni-
>saarland.de]
>Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 3:03 PM
>To: info at 3dnetproductions.com
>Cc: x3d-public at web3d.org
>Subject: Re: [X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D
>HTML5meetingdiscussions:Declarative 3D interest group at
>W3C
>
>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
>>