[x3d-public] Fwd: Re: id attribute proposal

Michael Aratow maratow at noegenesis.com
Sun Mar 20 19:20:31 PDT 2016


Don

You make a good point about being careful to avoid IP, but I still 
strongly believe by looking at concepts if not overt methodologies in 
other initiatives is crucial to our survival.

(Thread forwarded to public list).

Mike

On 3/20/16 7:04 PM, Don Brutzman wrote:
> Thanks Mike.  Would you like it forwarded to the list?  Thought you 
> had an account on that list.
>
> I don't like looking at random company products in order to avoid 
> inadvertently bringing proprietary/patented technology into X3D. 
> Others are certainly welcome to do that perusal, gives us a bit of a 
> buffer.
>
> We keep aligning with Web core and remain adaptable to everything 
> else.  X3D JSON is growing that.  It was interesting to see how many 
> serious questions Mitch got from the VR Hackathon judges, clearly they 
> wanted to know more.  Onward we go.
>
> On 3/20/2016 6:54 PM, Michael Aratow wrote:
>>
>> I meant to forward this to more people, but I just realized it only 
>> went to John and Andreas.
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> From:     14 2016 <>
>> X-Mozilla-Status:     0001
>> X-Mozilla-Status2:     00800000
>> X-Mozilla-Keys:
>> Subject:     Re: [x3d-public] id attribute proposal
>> To:     John Carlson <john.carlson3 at sbcglobal.net>, Andreas Plesch 
>> <andreasplesch at gmail.com>
>> References: 
>> <CAKdk67uo8HG_YTsoDux5oNYb6vo3=HKOkzCXKaRC51SZ2r=TVA at mail.gmail.com> 
>> <CAGC3UEn2SXzYXkAWGWMJvZg_7fGVrStDgo6kyk+AR-Y4veAssg at mail.gmail.com> 
>> <56EF1723.4010600 at nps.edu>
>> From:     Michael Aratow <maratow at noegenesis.com>
>> Message-ID:     <56EF2744.7010008 at noegenesis.com>
>> Date:     Sun, 20 Mar 2016 15:42:12 -0700
>> User-Agent:     Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; 
>> rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
>> MIME-Version:     1.0
>> In-Reply-To:     <56EF1723.4010600 at nps.edu>
>> Content-Type:     text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding:     7bit
>>
>>
>>
>> I think that while backwards compatibility is important, adoption is
>> just as, if not more, important.  If there is not much written in X3D,
>> what is backwards compatibility worth?
>>
>> The web is the home for X3D, and you can alienate the very developers
>> who write web applications by changing paradigms or reference models.
>> John is trying to bring X3D into the current web world where most
>> developers live.  If web developers have a choice between learning a
>> declarative language that matches concepts with what they already do and
>> one that has a different model, they will go with the former. Why do
>> you think GLAM, A-Frame and ThreeJS have so much attention and
>> traction??  Many or all of them may eventually fall by the wayside, and
>> we have seen this happen many times before, but instead of picking up
>> X3D, people wander aimlessly until the next wave of 3D declarative
>> languages appears.
>>
>> What we can learn from those fallen languages is that they did address
>> some needs of the community, and if X3D wants to be around for another
>> 100 years, it needs to co-opt those favorable qualities that brought
>> them to the forefront, although transiently in the first place and learn
>> from those qualities that brought about their demise.
>>
>> So, why not learn from those languages that are getting traction now in
>> the Web3D/VR world?  They match the DOM!  So, let' do that, and the
>> Consortium can write translators to ensure backwards compatibility;
>> these can be placed within js libraries and applications as needed.
>> Backwards compatibility doesn't have to mean that the raw file can be
>> read by anything, if you have good translators, then you have an extra
>> step, but it is still preserved.
>>
>> On 3/20/16 2:33 PM, Don Brutzman wrote:
>>> Obvious questions:
>>>
>>> a. can DEF/USE simply be utilized instead?  First law of engineering:
>>> "if it isn't broken, don't fix it."
>>>
>>> b. if DEF/USE cannot or ought not to be utilized, then how is is
>>> backwards compatibility handled?  This includes Inline content loaded
>>> into a parent scene.
>>>
>>> c. what does X3DOM currently do?
>>>
>>> d. what does Cobweb currently do?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/20/2016 10:09 AM, John Carlson wrote:
>>>> I'll second the proposal.  Also I'd like to propose adding CSS
>>>> selectors for values of the fromNode and toNode attributes on ROUTEs
>>>> if not already in the standard. Thus if you have a node with
>>>> id="foo"  you could use a route with toNode="#foo".  Class attributes
>>>> would work similarly for fan in fan out.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 20, 2016 11:23 AM, "Andreas Plesch"<andreasplesch at gmail.com 
>>>> >><mailto:andreasplesch at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Since Don mentioned that nobody has proposed introducing an 'id'
>>>> attribute, let me then propose adding an 'id' SFString attribute to
>>>> all nodes for x3d 4.0.
>>>>
>>>>     The reason is simply compatibility with the DOM on web pages in
>>>> the case where x3d nodes are interpreted as DOM elements.
>>>>
>>>>     Andreas
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> all the best, Don
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> all the best, Don




More information about the x3d-public mailing list