[x3d-public] X3D Working Group Minutes

Tue Jul 28 13:07:45 PDT 2015

Below are the minutes from last week's working group. The next meeting 
of the working group is tomorrow. I will be sending out an agenda later 
today.

*X3D Working Group Meeting*

*Wednesday, 2015-07-22*

**

**

*Attendees:*Leonard Daly, Roy Walmsley, Dick Puk, Max Limper, William 
Glascoe, Don Brutzman, Anita Havele

*MIA:*Bitmanagement, Joe Williams, Nicholas Polys

*Excused: *No one

Focus: *X3D Futures for SIGGRAPH*

/Meeting started at 8:05 (PDT)/

1.Introductions (All)

2.Spec Status (Dick)

2.1.Diagram showing spec document relationships:

2.1.1.Chart with specification relationships
http://www.web3d.org/specifications/X3dSpecificationRelationships.png
http://www.web3d.org/specifications/X3dSpecificationRelationships.pdf

2.2.Editor’s Meeting Report on 19777-1 (ECMAScript Language Binding)

2.2.1.Processed all comments (Web3D and others)

2.2.2.Voted to recommend advancement to DIS based on availability of 
final (DIS) text

2.2.3.Final text based on responses on comments

2.2.4.Do not expect any issues

2.2.5.Anticipate completing text work by the start of the SC-24

3.Schedule through the September

3.1.Topics (tentative)

3.1.1.29 July 2015 – SIGGRAPH Planning

3.1.2.5 August 2015 – SIGGRAPH Planning

3.1.3.11 August 2015, 3:30pm Room 504 (LACC)

3.1.4.19 August 2015 – SIGGRAPH Review, SC-24 preparation

3.1.5.26 August 2015 – TBD (SC-24 meeting)

3.1.6.2 September 2015 – X3D Futures (V3.4, V4.x, or any topic related 
to future specifications)

3.1.7.9 September 2015 – TBD

3.1.8.16 September 2015 – TBD

3.1.9.23 September 2015 – TBD

3.1.10.30 September 2015 – TBD

4.X3D Futures

4.1.SIGGRAPH in 3- weeks

4.1.1.Review press release – link from Anita

4.1.2.Request a summary of accomplishments and plans from each of the WGs

4.1.3.BOF schedule: http://www.web3d.org/event/x3d-xroads-3d-web

4.2.Major announcement on X3D V4

4.3.SRC (binary geometry) standard

4.4.X3D V3.4 document and/or functionality

5.X3D V 4

5.1.A number of significant compatibility issues between X3D and X3DOM

5.2.Pages at URLs below highlight differences between X3D and X3DOM

5.2.1.www.web3d.org/specifications/X3dNodeInventoryComparison.xlsx 
<http://www.web3d.org/specifications/X3dNodeInventoryComparison.xlsx>

5.2.2.www.web3d.org/specifications/X3dNodeInventoryComparison.pdf 
<http://www.web3d.org/specifications/X3dNodeInventoryComparison.pdf>

5.2.3.http://realism.com/x3d-tools/Specifications/comparison.php

5.2.4.NodeInventory notes

5.2.4.1.The EventUtilities nodes exist as X3D V3 PROTO nodes

5.2.4.2.‘required for Immersive Profile’: The HTML5 profile needs to be 
at least as capable as Immersive

5.2.4.3.‘suggested for HTML5 profile’: HTML5 profile should be a 
superset of X3D V3 Immersive

5.2.4.4.‘not yet implemented’:

5.2.5.Fraunhofer has had sufficient turnover that there was a 
significant knowledge loss.

5.2.6.X3DOM code should be rewritten to improve internal structures

5.2.7.Need to build external community

5.2.8.As a group we are trying to understand what problem are we trying 
to solve

5.2.8.1.Is it to produce a highly optimized 3D display system

5.2.8.2.Maximum flexibility to 3D system authors

5.2.8.3.Multiple problems and audiences

5.2.8.4.Something not listed here

5.2.9.William sent a private message to some with information on the 
Strategy Markup Language for determining the participants and how their 
strategies align

5.2.10.Perhaps presenting various HTML-orientated profile options would 
be useful

5.2.10.1.How feature-rich should the HTML profile be?

5.2.10.1.1.Is it sufficient to focus only on non-convenience geometry 
plus appearance nodes and use JavaScript to handle the interaction.

5.2.10.1.2.Are animation nodes needed?

5.2.10.1.3.Can things be done better by providing a JavaScript/DOM 
library (akin to jQuery) for manipulation of the X3D Scene instead of 
providing that functionality within X3D

5.2.10.1.4.How many authors do we lose if a more minimal approach is taken?

5.2.10.1.5.How many (non-X3D) content developers are turned off because 
X3D/HTML appears to be too large and/or intimidating?

5.2.10.2.How important is size (total download)? Is this a function of 
the device (desktop vs. phone)?

5.2.10.3.How important is performance beyond a certain minimum?

5.2.11.Schedule

5.2.11.1.WG has used a target of Dec 2015 for delivery of a spec to ISO. 
Other options include:

5.2.11.1.1.Delivery to public (not ISO) and spend ~6M to handle quality 
and conformance issues

5.2.11.1.2.Is even trying to get an ISO spec for Dec the correct thing 
to do? (How do we determine correct?)

5.3.Roy has noted that several of the nodes in X3DOM do not correctly 
implement all of the required fields. There are issues to decide whether 
conformance happens prior, in-step, or after the development of the spec.

5.4.Need to determine which nodes (or classes or nodes) are to be 
present in X3D V4

5.4.1.Requirements

5.4.1.1.X3D as a whole must support everything in X3D V3.3, except for 
nodes or components that are deprecated

5.4.1.2.End result must be implementable and have two implementations

5.4.1.3.May add features and./or profiles that are needed, documented, 
and implemented

5.4.2.A new ‘HTML’ profile may overlap with existing profiles and 
include nodes and./or fields not in any existing profile.

5.4.3.My causes for concern (not necessarily complete)

5.4.3.1.Script node name conflict

5.4.3.2.DOM Namespaces (includes need for IMPORT/EXPORT)

5.4.3.3.DOM/X3D interaction not using the SAI

5.4.3.4.PROTO and EXTERNPROTO

5.4.3.5.Miscellaneous fields (e.g., url, render)

5.4.3.6.Miscellaneous STATEMENTS (e.g., UNITS)

5.4.3.7.Geometry (Mesh, Extrusion, ElevationGrid, SRC)

5.4.3.8.Appearance (Shaders)

5.4.3.9.Spec-compliant implementations

5.4.4.How to go about creating an HTML profile that can be documented 
and implemented by December?

5.5.Source Resource Container (SRC)

5.5.1.A structure for holding geometry that can be directly imported 
onto a graphics card

5.5.2.Start on document at http://realism.com/x3d-tools/Specifications/SRC/

5.5.3.Fraunhofer paper and documentation at http://x3dom.org/src

5.5.4.Is this done as 1 or 2 documents? IOW, are multiple encodings 
possible?

5.5.5.The SRC standard should be 1 document that fully defines the file 
layout (use the paper as reference).

5.5.6.Khronos uses little-endian for glTF.

5.5.7.There is only one encoding of the SRC file format.

5.5.7.1.Abstract specification would normatively use SRC in the same 
manner it uses JFIF (JPEG file format).

5.5.7.2.Encoding parts (19776-*) would need to be updated appropriately

5.5.8.Look at ISO Work item proposal for guidance on document structure

5.5.9.Leonard to continue working on document

5.6.Other topics (from 4.4)

5.6.1.X3D WG request a summary from each of the WGs to manage the 
Consortium messaging.

5.6.2.BOF event announcement: http://www.web3d.org/event/x3d-xroads-3d-web

/Meeting ended at 10:06/

//

-- 
*Leonard Daly*
X3D Co-Chair
Cloud Consultant
President, Daly Realism - /Creating the Future/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20150728/ec5b87a8/attachment-0001.html>