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

[cbullard at hiwaay.net]

IME and yours, that is usually the case.  OTOH, I'm wondering if with  
all of the available experience, there is a path that is faster and  
surer.

We've certainly waited long enough. ;)

len

Quoting Chris Marrin <chris at marrin.com>:

>
> 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
>
>