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

[GLG]

Coming up to speed. Never had much time to look too deep
into this, especially that I wasn't sold on the idea plus
the holidays and everything. Thanks for your patience.  

Lauren

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Philipp Slusallek [mailto:slusallek at cs.uni-
>saarland.de]
>Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 3:45 AM
>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,
>
>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
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>