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

[Roy Walmsley]

Hi Michalis and Yves,

First, many thanks for your comments. Your inputs are valuable.

Don is correct in what he says about the GitHub repository being available
to members-only. However, I would like to add some comments of my own.

Michalis, you are 'almost' correct when you say that comments have been lost
in the past. Almost, because I can assure you that no specification comments
were actually 'lost'. There was a period when  they were ignored, but that
is no longer the case. Over the last six months or so I have traced back ALL
comments, going back many years, and 'resurrected' all comments into our
issue database system. Now, all new specification comments are added to the
database, within a day or two of receipt.

This does mean, however, that we now have a large backlog of Mantis issues,
particularly as we ourselves are adding issues at a rate of, something like,
10 to 20 per month. Over the next few months we plan to attack this backlog,
and eradicate it entirely, as we prepare the next version of the
specification.

With respect to draft specifications, when we are ready they will be made
public. We obviously want and need your inputs, so you will have ample
opportunity to respond. As Don says, you are welcome to join the Web3D
Consortium if you would like to take a more active role.

Yves, thanks also for your three suggestions. They are noted.

Regards,

Roy

-----Original Message-----
From: x3d-public [mailto:x3d-public-bounces at web3d.org] On Behalf Of Yves
Piguet
Sent: 23 February 2016 08:53
To: X3D Graphics public mailing list
Subject: Re: [x3d-public] procedure for timely resolution of straightforward
X3D specification issues

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.


_______________________________________________
x3d-public mailing list
x3d-public at web3d.org
http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org