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

[Philipp Slusallek]

Hi,

It seems we are getting closer, thanks.

WebGL is just a thin layer of top of OpenGL and nothing like
declarative. So it for the same same reason people prefer X3D over
coding at the OpenGL layer. As I have explained in one of my first
emails, I believe that this layer is even more important to get
acceptance for 3D in the Web space for the millions of Web developers.

	Philipp

Am 03.01.2011 08:20, schrieb GLG:
> Hello Philipp and all,
> 
> Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I have never expected much
> backward compatibility from the HTML version of 3D (whatever
> that turns out to be). It would be nice, and that is why I
> like the X3DOM version, but my concern is largely with the
> forward ability to upgrade content. X3D's history, stability
> and strenght make it the ideal candidate model IMO, and
> perhaps that made me sound like wanting backward
> compatibility. It is the content upgrade path that I am
> mostly concerned with, the efficiency in which that content
> will be rendered, along with an outlook of what that content
> might look like and of course the ability to transcode. In
> terms of capabilities, that is likely to look a lot like
> X3D, perhaps not in form, granted that, but in function.
> Nevertheless, instead of discarding what I knew we would be
> aiming at, I tried to preserve it. That was a bit
> contradictary to your originally stated goals, but I am now
> beginning to better understand what it is you are actually
> trying to accomplish. And as such, I am willing to
> participate, because ultimately, our objectives can actually
> coincide. So let me say to X3D lovers and content developers
> out there - please bear with it if this gets a little hard
> to follow. It may turn out to be a crucial exercise that can
> actually help X3D, not hurt it as it may appear. So no more
> politics from me, let's get on with the business of making
> the best declarative 3D DOM we can conjure up. 
> 
> Having said that, my question is what's wrong with WebGL?
> Isn't that the perfect way to get to where we want? 
> 
> Lauren
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Philipp Slusallek [mailto:slusallek at cs.uni-
>> saarland.de]
>> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 5:40 PM
>> To: info at 3dnetproductions.com
>> Cc: 'Joe D Williams'; 'Chris Marrin'; 'Len Bullard'; x3d-
>> public at web3d.org
>> Subject: Re: [X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D
>> HTML5meetingdiscussions:Declarative 3D interest group at
>> W3C
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yes, I am promoting XML3D but I am also defending the
>> general idea to
>> think about doing 3D the Web way. I am perfectly open to
>> discuss
>> changing XML3D using better features and approaches -- if
>> people make
>> concrete suggestions.
>>
>> And yes, not everything we wish we had is working yet, but
>> this is
>> expected after only about a year and a half. And given that
>> we have a
>> reasonable spec, two native (Firefox and Chrome) and one
>> WebGL based
>> implementation, and a couple of projects that are starting
>> to use it, I
>> am quite happy with what we have achieved so far. With
>> AnySL and XFlow,
>> we will soon have a number of capabilities that are not
>> even in X3D yet,
>> which is not too bad either.
>>
>> PROTOS and X3D event propagation are not in XML3D, and we
>> are not sure
>> that we really need the latter, as I have discussed (BTW,
>> at least the
>> first and I believe also the second is not in X3DOM either,
>> at least
>> when running integrated with WebGL).
>>
>> While this probably mean that complex X3D scenes may not be
>> easily
>> transcribed into running within the Web browser (neither
>> XML3D nor
>> X3DOM), this backward compatibility is not our main
>> concern, as I
>> explained earlier. Having said this, it would be nice to be
>> able to
>> convert as much as possible, though. There may even be way
>> in which at
>> least some of that functionality can be transcoded, e.g.
>> using some sort
>> of wrapper scripts for the SAI interfaces mapped to their
>> DOM
>> counterparts -- but full compatibility seems really hard.
>>
>> BTW, our next meeting to discuss joint ideas between XML3D
>> and X3DOM is
>> scheduled for early this year.
>>
>> 	Philipp
>>
>>
>> Am 02.01.2011 22:15, schrieb GLG:
>>> Hello Philipp,
>>>
>>> I sense you're a bit exhausted with my "political"
>> arguments
>>> so I'll try to restrain myself and be more concrete,
>>> although the more I read and think about your own posts
>> on
>>> XML3D, the more I feel you are just as heavily promoting
>>> XML3D. So let's say we're even and get past that.
>>>
>>> Moving on. One of the first things you said was that
>> "making
>>> the DOM a great declarative 3D scene graph should be our
>>> main goal here." From this premise, it becomes apparent
>> that
>>> it is your contention that little if nothing of X3D
>> should
>>> be salvaged. You do acknowledge that some parts such as
>>> synchronized events, data propagation and prototypes are
>>> worth considering under different implementations,
>>> emulations or simply imitated, but I can't help notice
>> that
>>> these parts are all but largely missing from XML3D. You
>>> often point to incomplete or planned work, or to obscure
>>> other items that are also not quite ready but expected to
>>> work. Plus, we have barely touched the subjects of how
>>> complexe, multi-layered and flexible PROTOS can be, and
>> how
>>> a simlulation would work across domains. In short, a lot
>> of
>>> conjectures, expectations and assumptions, to pretty much
>>> start from scratch on the way to a 3D web. Not only would
>> it
>>> be necessary to assemble, debug, rebuild, upgrade a
>> number
>>> of parts to make everything work, we also have to contend
>>> with the fact that there is no upgrade path in sight nor
>>> even a hint of compatibility with existing standards. We
>> can
>>> transcode 3D objects but most if not all existing
>>> interaction and behavior would be lost. In essence, this
>> is
>>> like going back to VRML1 without any real reason to
>> believe
>>> this would result in a wider acceptance of 3D on the web
>>> (Let's not forget that VRML1 and VRML2 were very simple
>> to
>>> use). Isn't that a whole lot of wishful thinking?
>>>
>>> On the other hand, X3DOM based on WebGL is also being
>>> proposed. WebGL which is really like an evolved subset of
>>> OpenGL, the later which has always been the underlying
>>> foundation of VRML and X3D (I don't have to tell you this
>>> and I'm simplifying but not much). X3DOM itself is
>>> recognizable X3D. So nothing is radically different here,
>>> and existing artwork have a better chance of salvation.
>> It
>>> also does achieve the goal of rendering 3D in a web
>> browser,
>>> with the distinct advantage that an upgrade path to full
>>> fledged X3D will remain available for as long as we need
>> and
>>> want it.
>>>
>>> We are forced to generalize for the sake of brevity, but
>>> what am I missing here Philipp. I find it extremely
>>> difficult to get my head around to accepting XML3D. That
>> is
>>> without mentioning the potential loss of 14+ years of
>>> development in interactive VRML/X3D. Not just my work,
>> but
>>> countless others. It is a very big step and a huge leap
>> of
>>> faith you are asking. And for what? Really the benefits
>> are
>>> not all that clear, and performance would suffer
>>> tremendously IMO. I find it hard to imagine running a
>> world
>>> like Office Towers over Javascript and CSS in a web
>> browser.
>>> That just seems ludicrous. There has to be a better
>>> solution. I really think 3D in a browser should be a
>> gateway
>>> step to more solid applications when it's time to run
>>> processing intensive, memory gobbling worlds; at least
>> for
>>> some time until it all get sorted out.
>>>
>>> I hope these were technical issues enough. Please do not
>>> give up on me just yet. I am a reasonable person. As long
>> I
>>> am still listening, I can be convinced if I believe the
>>> arguments presented. Perhaps you could talk about what
>> parts
>>> of XML3D you would be willing to remove in favor of
>> X3DOM,
>>> so that more people would like the outcome.
>>>
>>> Lauren
>>>
>>>
> 
>