[x3d-public] procedure for timely resolution of straightforward X3D specification issues

[Yves Piguet]

I'm totally with Michalis, and regret the reply of Don. Of course, I also understand that patents could be very harmful and must be avoided. However, I'm not sure that a closed membership is the only answer.

Some kinds of public read-only drafts of 3.4 would be helpful to get a better feeling of the future of X3D. I'm still unsure how to get this information by googling this list or with the documents I've found on github. What I think would be very useful is rationales for the decisions behind X3D. The X3D xml-based format, for instance, seems to be by far the preferred official format, relegating VRML classic to some historic artifact. I assume this means that nobody is supposed to write X3D in a text editor. Standard-compliant JSON obviously isn't meant to be written or read by hand, except for debugging.

With the buzz around VR headsets promised for 2016 and all related VR developments on the software side, X3D should be in a good position to be an important piece of the puzzle. I'm not sure it will.  Here are three ideas I humbly share:

- Make developing with X3D more fun by reducing its verbosity. For example put more emphasis on VRML classic (renaming it?), and simplify some recurring constructs (Shape, Transform, Script or interpolator nodes required even for trivial things such as converting an SFFloat angle to an SFRotation).

- A large, cool application, such as a totally distributed version of Second Life. Simplicity should be one of the goals to create a community quickly. Most of the pieces are already available.

- Adoption on VR headsets as soon as possible when they'll arrive.

Yves

On 23 févr. 2016, at 01:59, Michalis Kamburelis wrote:

> c. We have begun putting the X3D Specification draft documents into github version control for shared editing and detailed member review.
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is fantastic news, if this repository is going to be public. I would love to be able to submit pull requests (or at least issues to the public bugtracker) to the X3D specification. It could be an incredible boost to X3D, to be so open.
> 
> (I believe it would be much better system than Web3d.org form "spec comments", where in my experience many submitted issues, even trivial corrections of obvious spec errors, have been lost.)
> 
> Is there a chance of this possible in the near future?
> 
> I cannot google the X3D specifications on GitHub now, so I assume they are private now?
> 
> I'm sorry if this was already explained on this list --- I was a little quiet for the last couple of months, busy in coding (around my engine and X3D and Android:)
> 
> Best regards,
> Michalis
> _______________________________________________
> x3d-public mailing list
> x3d-public at web3d.org
> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org


On 23 févr. 2016, at 04:37, Don Brutzman wrote:

> The specification drafts in version control will remain accessible to members only.
> 
> On occasion, especially prior to a review vote, we present them to the public for comment.  The recent posting of the Extrusion revisions was hopefully helpful.
> 
> The Web3D Consortium has carefully established a "safe haven" for members to work where everyone has committed to the IPR Agreement.  This approach has ensured, since 1998, that the X3D Specification series remains unencumbered by license fees.  It also ensures that members can consider patented contributions as long as they are provided to become royalty free, if accepted.