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

[Johannes Behr]

Hi,

> I would not expect much backward compatibility in a web
> browser by any stretch of the imagination. At least not for
> the worlds I am involved with, which are extremely complex
> and script intensive. Not withstanding the commendable
> efforts of those involved, the day when full 3D worlds are
> displayed directly in a browser is way ahead of us. Well
> over a decade of development went into current X3D viewers,
> and that will probably take just as long to get the same
> functionality into web browsers, if it ever gets to the
> level X3D viewers are today. I would actually see more
> chances of that happening in the short to mid term if say,
> an existing X3D viewer code were to be integrated into a web
> browser. But, I digress, then again maybe not - who knows
> what the future holds. 
> 
> What I would be looking for however, in terms of
> 'compatibility', is the ability for the two general methods
> (browser vs viewer rendering) to coexist. This so that basic
> X3D scenes are displayed in web browsers via one of the
> proposed schemes. Then, when more capabilities are required,
> X3D viewers take over in a seamless fashion to render the
> more involved worlds. As in a step up from the simpler, more
> accessible 3D into advanced functionality as required. The
> X3D profile scheme is well suited for that. I believe this
> type of scenario would be good for Web3D and the web, making
> the core X3D profile easily accessible as an interim, until
> the users install a full fledge viewer, or browser
> improvements allow for extended profiles. I hope this is
> exactly what is being worked on.

This is how the x3dom-fallback model works internally:

http://www.x3dom.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/x3dom-fallback-Release-1.1.png

It matches a content given profile to a runtime.
The runtime can be native (we have e.g. an WebKit
version which works on iOS-Devides ), an X3D-Plugin (e.g. InstantReality
plugin, which supports immersive up to 3.2) and
the WebGL-Scenegraph which only supports the HTML-Profile we defined:

http://www.x3dom.org/?page_id=158

There could be more intelligent ways but this
is how far we got by applying the profile concept.

regards
johannes


> If so then, bravo, you are
> going in the right direction. What I am against is starting
> from scratch with a new 3D format, overlooking the work that
> has already been done during all these years, thinking that
> extensive interactive 3D can be made simple. Rocket science
> for everyone? I don't think so. If I wanted simple I'd go to
> SL. I need the complex set of tools that X3D provides.
> Please don't ask me to do brain surgery with a spoon.   
> 
> Cheers,
> Lauren
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Philipp Slusallek [mailto:slusallek at cs.uni-
>> saarland.de]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 12:54 AM
>> To: info at 3dnetproductions.com
>> Cc: x3d-public at web3d.org
>> Subject: Re: [X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D HTML5 meeting
>> discussions:Declarative 3D interest group at W3C
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I fully agree that backward compatibility is important in
>> general -- but
>> I would not want to put backwards compatibility as our main
>> objective.
>> This is not a Web3D working group.
>> 
>> Instead we should strive for the best possible 3D within
>> the Web/HTML
>> world going forward, but see that we can maintain as much
>> compatibility
>> as possible where it is necessary. This is where I am happy
>> that we have
>> Johannes on board, who has created X3DOM primarily with
>> that aspect in
>> mind. We already had quite some discussions on this topic.
>> 
>> However, we should also look at things in perspective and
>> be pragmatic:
>> X3D's adoption compared to the Web as a whole is rather
>> small (BTW, is
>> there any reliable statistics available, like # of X3D
>> files on the Web,
>> size of the user community, use of feature set, or such?).
>> 
>> BTW, backwards compatibility can come in many ways: from
>> the ability to
>> simply load X3D files (which ones? there are so many
>> profiles and
>> encodings) to a converter. Actually, Kristian's X3D to
>> XML3D converter
>> is already doing a pretty good job, while being only a side
>> project so far.
>> 
>> 
>> 	Philipp
>> 
>> Am 29.12.2010 22:12, schrieb GLG:
>>> John A. Stewart wrote:
>>>> 2) *somehow* keep the ability to *somehow* render older
>>>> scenes so that users have continuity with their content
>>>> over years and years.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I tend to second that. I hope we are not looking to
>>> cannibalize ourselves with yet another standard LOL. It
>> is
>>> good to see Chris M. back here after such a long time,
>> but
>>> if I am to get behind this idea/proposal and X3DOM or
>>> anything else for that matter, I would be interested for
>> the
>>> eventual full implementation of existing standards. That
>> may
>>> or may not be possible in practice, but achieving
>>> compatibility at the very least, so that 'old' worlds can
>>> still link to new ones at a minimum. This, as a consensus
>> of
>>> the direction going forward; a certain persistence of
>>> vision.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Lauren
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> X3D-Public mailing list
>>> X3D-Public at web3d.org
>>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> X3D-Public mailing list
> X3D-Public at web3d.org
> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org

--
Dr. Johannes Behr
Leiter Projektbereich VR

Fraunhofer-Institut für Graphische Datenverarbeitung IGD
Fraunhoferstr. 5  |  64283 Darmstadt  |  Germany
Tel +49 6151 155-510  |  Fax +49 6151 155-196
johannes.behr at igd.fraunhofer.de  |  www.igd.fraunhofer.de