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

[Chris Marrin]

On Jan 3, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Len Bullard wrote:

> Chris says:
> 
> "So before saying that PROTOs, or ROUTEs or the X3D event cascade or timing
> model are crucial, step back and look at what the browsers already provide
> and try to fit into that model. It's a much lower impedance path."
> 
> Clarification:  it's not a choice of the highway, but of exactly what is or
> can be provided with the note that because there are crucial things done
> with PROTOs, ROUTEs, and the X3D event cascade and these are already fully
> supported in a technology, the technologist offering alternatives can't
> offer less.  I hope that's clear in intent.

What I think you're saying is that all the capabilities of X3D must be preserved so existing content will work. I'm saying that attempting that would be a much higher impedance path and (IMHO) unlikely to succeed. If a set of declarative 3D capabilities is added to the browsers, then perhaps someone will come up with a clever translator. But I believe there will have to be some hand translation for some existing X3D content.

My philosophical point is that I don't think this effort can be viewed as a way to get X3D into web browsers, but rather as a way to get declarative 3D into web browsers. If you can accomplish that, you will get huge coverage in mainstream browsers and there will be an explosion of content produced - let a thousand flowers bloom, and all that...

-----
~Chris
chris at marrin.com