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

Leonard Daly Leonard.Daly at realism.com
Wed Jun 15 07:57:52 PDT 2016


I am just now getting back to emails from last week. This response is 
only going to public to keep from splitting threads. I also changed the 
subject to make it easier to follow. Roy's original message has been 
edited down to the key points for this subject. This email ONLY deals 
with X3D in HTML.


> a)Clarify what form the V4.0 specifications are likely to exist in
>
As Roy noted, this is the first time it has been recorded that there is 
agreement. I was unaware of any disagreement about the structure; which 
may help explain why it wasn't recorded, but just assumed.

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

I am not opposed to keeping SAI. I am not sure it has any value except 
for backwards compatibility. I think it's ultimate fate is better 
determined later in the process.

> 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.
>

Note that my proposal is more than changes to 19775-1 in that it also 
includes encoding changes.

> 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)
>

I would suggest that event model (X3D vs. DOM) is the most important of 
the above. When that is resolved several other issues (primarily 
rendering - not listed above) will be handled. Many of the above are 
defined in the HTML environment, so are not X3D choosable (e.g., 
capitalization). Others are more of a performance issue (strings vs. 
numbers), or can be resolved by convention (namespace). I have yet to 
see a viable proposal for handling X3D Scripts in an HTML environment. I 
would add CSS to the list. It needs to be specifically addressed, even 
if X3D V4 does not use it.

I edited out the rest, because all I have to say about it is "Agreed!" 
And Thank You Roy.

Leonard Daly


P.S. Here is the rest of Roy's comments.

> 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.
>



-- 
*Leonard Daly*
3D Systems & Cloud Consultant
X3D Co-Chair on Sabbatical
LA ACM SIGGRAPH Chair
President, Daly Realism - /Creating the Future/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20160615/e984f379/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the x3d-public mailing list