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

[Joe D Williams]

chris > I understand there are participants here that have a vested 
interest in existing systems: X3D, X3DOM, XML3D, and maybe others.

note that of those listed above, X3D is really the only one that has 
been around long enough for serious vested interest. X3DOM and XML3D 
are more or less public and open sollutions that have only really been 
running a short time. As I mentioned last week, I am overjoyed that 
now major X3D browsers can run in Safari and I am gueesing, mostly the 
same way in Safari and others in the mac OS. So now there really is an 
X3D user base on the macs, unlike in the past.

Actually, I am just realizing that apple has a distinct interest and a 
lot of work into this solution for an energetic and live api above the 
WebGL, working as expected in the html/xml DOM

This is getting better all the time.

Joe



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Marrin" <chris at marrin.com>
To: "Len Bullard" <cbullard at hiwaay.net>
Cc: "'X3D mailing list Graphics public'" <x3d-public at web3d.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: [X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D HTML5 meeting 
discussions:Declarative 3D interest group at W3C


>
> On Jan 4, 2011, at 6:26 PM, Len Bullard wrote:
>
>> Maybe.  On the other hand, there are over fifteen years of 
>> experience cross
>> product to at least a few thousand 3D engine developers conversant 
>> in all of
>> the code architectures represented frequently or occasionally here.
>>
>> You have the experience to outline what the most used and least 
>> used
>> features are of current 3D on the web in ALL incarnations.   There 
>> is a huge
>> body of 3D on the web systems of different authorities out there. 
>> Surely by
>> now there is general agreement on the general sets.   Instead of 
>> the 'code a
>> little test a lot and wait' approach, something broader should be 
>> spec'd for
>> the feature goals.  I think you can do it now.
>>
>> Perhaps instead of taking baby steps, this is the time for giant 
>> steps.
>
> Take a giant step and you may fall off a cliff. Please understand 
> that I'm not saying all the capabilities and lessons learned over 
> the last 15 years aren't important. I'm saying that in my experience 
> attempting to integrate into existing browsers requires small 
> additions that extend the existing functionality. Anything else will 
> (and has) get bogged down in endless debate and will go nowhere.
>
> I understand there are participants here that have a vested interest 
> in existing systems: X3D, X3DOM, XML3D, and maybe others. I believe 
> this XG (if it ever gets started) has to start with a clean slate 
> and slowly build up with existing ideas and new thoughts, until it 
> is just enough to be useful.
>
> We have tons of ideas on where to go next with WebGL. We left out 
> many good ideas in the interest of finishing and shipping multiple 
> compatible implementations. That has been a successful idea so far. 
> We can work on new ideas next. But WebGL 1.0 had to be demonstrable 
> on multiple browsers. I think the same goes here.
>
> -----
> ~Chris
> chris at marrin.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> X3D-Public mailing list
> X3D-Public at web3d.org
> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org