[x3d-public] [x3d] V4.0 Open discussion/workshop on X3D HTML integration

Thu Jun 9 09:59:23 PDT 2016

I feel the need to comment on the issue of progress that is raised below.

X3D V4.0 essentially consists of two strands:

1)      Evolving V3.3 by the addition (and possible deletion) of components.

2)      Integration of X3D into HTML.

The evolutionary strand 1) referred to above is progressing. A lot has been
accomplished. Great. Keep up the good work.

In contrast the integration strand 2) has made no significant progress. This
is why I am pushing it now. As far as I can see we have had 'goals' and
'requirements' in terms of high level statements for some years. These have
not been translated into more detailed activities. I am not suggesting that
we start writing specifications today, but  I am suggesting actions as
follows:

a)      Clarify what form the V4.0 specifications are likely to exist in

b)      Clarify if any major change, such as dropping SAI, is likely

c)       Review existing X3D implementations (X3DOM and Cobweb) to
understand the implications for those specifications arising from a) and b)

d)      Review other 3D implementations to see what lessons can be learned

The meeting discussions have contributed significantly to a) and b). There
was general agreement that the existing ISO/IEC standards structure should
be maintained, with no major removal of features such as SAI. Despite
raising this subject on previous occasions, this is the first time that any
resolution of these questions has evolved, and been recorded (at least it
will be, when I have updated the wiki page from yesterday).

Does anyone have any ideas about the general structure of the
specifications? What should the major content be? I have not seen any
expressed, other than Leonards proposed changes to 19775-1, and my own
general thoughts on DOM extension. Inputs from anyone are always welcome.

We can now move on to actions c) and d). We had some excellent input
yesterday from Philipp with respect to XML3D for d). While considering c)
and d) we need to also look for practical candidate solutions to the other
issues that we are aware of, such as:

.         Fields - DOMStrings vs X3D Types

.         Event models

.         DEF/USE vs ID/IDREF

.         Capitalization

.         Namespace

.         Scripts and Prototypes

.         (any I have missed)

Of course, we don't just write specifications to concur with the
implementations. But if we find multiple candidate solutions to resolve a
particular issue, with no great differing technical merit, having a proven
implementation of one would be a significant factor.

I know that HTML/DOM are rapidly changing environments, and we have to be
careful about jumping in. It is another area we have to keep up with. But we
can't simply sit and watch. We need coordinated action. Someone has to
define a path forward, and encourage participation. And currently, as I see
it, a major proportion of that is study. But while studying, lets also
generate some practical output, ready for the next phase (actually writing
specifications) when we are ready.

Solutions to issues will be found. They may start as ideas contributed by
individuals. Brainstorming is an excellent activity. But they will  arise
more easily with greater understanding.

Keeping X3D alive and active is not only a technical activity but a
marketing one. With no technical activity, there can be no marketing. With
no marketing, there is less participation, and consequently even less
technical activity ..

The upcoming Web3D / Siggraph conference is a major marketing opportunity.
We have to supply technical inputs to support that.

And another aspect  I haven't touched on is priority. That is a business
decision. While sound decisions may be strongly influenced by external
factors, they also rely on sound technical inputs.

Roy

-----Original Message-----
From: x3d-public [mailto:x3d-public-bounces at web3d.org] On Behalf Of Don
Brutzman
Sent: 09 June 2016 03:57
To: Leonard Daly
Cc: X3D Graphics public mailing list; 'x3D WG'
Subject: Re: [x3d-public] [x3d] V4.0 Open discussion/workshop on X3D HTML
integration

Leonard, please review the HTML5 Recommendation again for answers to some of
your issues.

1. Similar to X3D, HTML5 defines functionality in an abstract way before Two
encodings are defined, in adjacent chapters: loose HTML syntax and strict
XML/XHTML syntax.  Both are compatible because they have reconciled
idiosyncrasies by aligning each with the DOM.  Indeed this dual nature
appears in the title of the W3C Recommendation.

These links have been posted multiple times in the past:

                HTML5: A vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML and XHTML

                 <https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/> https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/

                8 The HTML syntax

                 <https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/syntax.html#syntax>
https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/syntax.html#syntax

                9 The XHTML syntax

<https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/the-xhtml-syntax.html#the-xhtml-syntax>
https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/the-xhtml-syntax.html#the-xhtml-syntax

Of note is that X3DOM itself works with both encodings.  Most of the
Fraunhofer examples use HTML syntax.  Over 3000 Web3D examples use the XHTML
syntax, where the XML is directly inserted into the HTML page.  Both work
fine.

X3D version 4 merely needs to allow alignment with HTML5 rules & relaxations
when running in an HTML5 browser.  Since HTML browsers parse page and scene
data, it seems unlikely that anything we might define would override that.

Regarding events:

-  DOM events pass a value from one element/node to another, always as a
string.

- X3D events pass a value from one element/node to another, always as
timestamped typed value - which have defined expressions as a string.

- Reconcilable.

Given the stability of browser environments, which took 14 years to achieve
when going from HTML4 to HTML5, we have a better environment for achieving
excellent compatibility than at any time in our history.

Regarding implementations: it is not reasonable to ask X3D players to always
act in a DOM way.  They are different environments.  Those that want to use
DOM for operations are welcome to.

2. Regarding X3D Script and X3D prototype: don't use them if you don't want
them.  But don't forbid others from using so much great work, repeatedly
implemented with success.  X3D would be much smaller and poorer without
prototype extensibility, it allowed us to build large portions of the
language.

3. Regarding Consortium:  you seem to think that some kind of decision is
needed.  We have a strategy, and we have lots of eyes on it, and we have
steady progress, and we can use lots more.  Encouraging activity is not
accomplished by opinions or subjective insider decisions.  We have goals,
requirements, process and proven track record across 2.5 versions of VRML, 4
versions of X3D, H-Anim, multiple encodings, multiple language bindings, all
of which continue to grow compatibly with increasing quality & consistency
in each passing month.  None (I repeat, none) of that was achieved by
"leadership decisions" that told volunteers how to spend their time.  All of
that progress was achieved by cooperative engagement, building consensus,
and working hard to implement and evaluate.  Specifications, example scenes
and software implementations are the proof points.

Not listening to repeated answers makes repetition of questions of limited
use.  "Too long didn't read" indeed.

Using your issues to help define issues/pros + cons/resolutions can
contribute to a constructive working group process that has a lot of
usefulness.

Traits like "dominant" or popular or common or whatever can be good
guidelines, but they are not the bottom line.  Well-defined, repeatable
functional correctness is.  This is why we have specifications, examples,
implementation and evaluation - for HTML as well as X3D.  This is why we
have cooperation between standards development organizations like W3C and
Web3D.  That is why we have standardization strategies for HTML5, MAR/VR
etc. all worked out collaboratively and posted online.  That is why today we
are NOT saying "well a couple of people made a personal decision 5-10-20
years ago that we are forced to live with."

I hope that this note helps explain to everyone how we continue to make
progress.

On 6/7/2016 9:29 PM, Leonard Daly wrote:

> Wednesday (8 June 2016) X3D WG call is dedicated to discussion X3D V4.
Several people (including myself) have commented on the ideas over the last
couple of years. I am going to state my current position here. I don't think
it differs much from my position a year ago; however, I'm sure there have
been some clarifications.

> 

> tl;dr

> 

>     X3D needs to run in the HTML5/DOM environment. A few nodes need to be
removed, but all capabilities remain.

> 

>     Preliminary proposed V4 document at:
<http://tools.realism.com/specification/x3d-v40>
http://tools.realism.com/specification/x3d-v40

> 

> 

> I am going to start my position with a response to a question asked by
John Carlson on a different list (x3dom-users): are we adding HTML5
capabilities to X3D or 3D (X3D in particular) capabilities to HTML5?

> 

> HTML is the dominant environment world-wide. It provides text, image, 2D
graphics (SVG), video, and other capabilities. The size of the HTML5
development community far exceeds the total of the entire X3D community.
Forcing HTML5 into X3D is a losing game right from the start -- whether you
want all of HTML5 or just a portion. So in my mind, the only choice with a
future is to add 3D to HTML5. Running in the HTML5 environment means full
integration with the HTML5 DOM (or later versions when they happen). BTW,
there are already a number of non-Web3D Consortium efforts to do so. We are
not out in front of the effort and are about to be made irrelevant. There is
no more time for delays or debates.

> 

> So now that the environment is settled, it is important to identify what
in current X3D (V3.3) is incompatible with HTML5. There are only three
obvious features - Script node, event handling, and case sensitivity. There
are other capabilities that are dependent on these capabilities -- I'll
discuss those later.

> 

> Starting with the easiest one first - case sensitivity. HTML5 is case
insensitive. Relaxing X3D's rules on that allows existing X3D code to run in
a browser. If everything gets converted to lower-case prior to handling
(except quoted strings), then there is not a problem.

> 

> There is an obvious naming incompatibility with Script -- the name. HTML5
is already using that name. Under my initial condition there cannot be an
X3D Script node. That does not mean all scripting functions are given up.
HTML5 provides a wonderful script interface a more flexible structure. In
X3D, Scripts are meant to process events, so the function argument is always
an event (except for X3D-Script internal functions). Functions in HTML5 are
a lot more flexible and can include events, objects, scalars, arrays, etc.
So there is no loss of functionality by giving up X3D-Script.

> 

> Event handling is different between HTML5 and X3D. In X3D events are
"routed" from one node to another. They allow one part of the scene graph to
"talk" to another part. In HTML5, events "bubble-up" from the originator to
the event through any handler that may be attached to any parent node of the
originator until the event is cancelled. In all of my design work on V4 I
have not found any instance where HTML5-Scripts could not provide the same
functionality as X3D-Script+ROUTE. It requires a little different mind-set,
but the HTML5 mind-set is very familiar to JavaScript programmers and other
front-end developers. I also believe that a graphical development interface
can be built that completely simplifies the differences.

> 

> The biggest issue I have seen with event handling is scene graph updating.
X3D updates the scene graph once all non-looping events in the cascade have
completed. After the scene graph is updated, a new frame is rendered. This
can cause a large delay between rendered frames. HTML5 renders as it goes.
Rendering happens asynchronously to changes to the DOM. There is no concept
of accessing the DOM before or after all events for that frame. X3D worlds
that depend on that feature will probably not be able to be ported to X3D
V4.

> 

> Summarizing the three incompatibilities - with the exception of some event
processing, none will prevent X3D from doing what it currently can do and
all can be easily migrated to the HTML5 environment.

> 

> 

> There are a number of features that I think should not be included in X3D
V4, but these are just features and not fundamental capabilities. These
include all nodes that generate geometry (e.g., Extrusion, ElevationGrid,
Text) with the exception of simple solids and perhaps a couple of additions.
My view here is based on the availability of free modeling software (e.g.,
Blender) that does all of the above, and a lot more efficiently than X3D
can. Also by not including these nodes, the resultant models will look
better.

> 

> Lastly (for now), I believe that there is no purpose for a PROTO node.
Without a X3D-Script node, PROTOs just become convenience generators. To
replace that feature, I am proposing a MACRO node that takes X3D and does
string substitution prior to inserting the result into the scene graph (and
DOM). I have a partial implementation of this for X3DOM.

> 

> Summarizing: The Consortium needs to get out and lead the way for 3D on
the web (and this includes VR) or it will be by-passed and left with the
relics of history like blinking text, and Flash. The environment must be
HTML5/DOM and X3D must stay current with the web environment. There will
always be someone who needs something specialized that does not use a web
environment, but those will be individual cases and not worth significant
volunteer efforts.

> 

> --

> *Leonard Daly*

> 3D Systems & Cloud Consultant

> X3D Co-Chair on Sabbatical

> LA ACM SIGGRAPH Chair

> President, Daly Realism - /Creating the Future/

all the best, Don

-- 

Don Brutzman  Naval Postgraduate School, Code USW/Br
<mailto:brutzman at nps.edu> brutzman at nps.edu

Watkins 270,  MOVES Institute, Monterey CA 93943-5000 USA   +1.831.656.2149

X3D graphics, virtual worlds, navy robotics
<http://faculty.nps.edu/brutzman> http://faculty.nps.edu/brutzman

_______________________________________________

x3d-public mailing list

 <mailto:x3d-public at web3d.org> x3d-public at web3d.org

 <http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org>
http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20160609/f63d5a54/attachment-0001.html>