[x3d-public] X3Dng Specification Document
yves.piguet at gmail.com
Fri Nov 4 08:07:28 PDT 2016
Thanks, Leonard. What I'm afraid of is that the DOM and the "classic" environments will diverge, or more likely the classic environment will be left behind. I'm not sure to understand the need for X3D-inspired declarative 3D merged in HTML5, à la SVG, considering such a compatibility break with X3D v3 and VRML (prototypes, events, scripts).
An alternative would be to have a basic descriptive-only profile for X3D, without proto/events/scripts, which could also be used by 3D authoring applications as an exchange format; and to move the HTML5 integration to a separate standard, like encodings in v3. Maybe you'll think it doesn't make any difference with your X3Dng specification, but one wouldn't get the feeling that if X3Dng/DOM is the future, then it means X3D with v3-like proto/events/scripts is the past. X3D would get a broader scope, not follow a narrow time line where features are discarded.
On 4 nov. 2016, at 15:24, Leonard Daly wrote:
> My interest is running declarative 3D (X3D) in a browser. I knew that several things were different and some browser-specific nodes would be required to support both flat-3D and VR/AR. I very intentionally did not work on the non-browser side of X3D. My time resources were limited and I knew that a lot of work needed to be done on the DOM side. Because of the fundamental differences (DOM is an API, HTML5 defines the environment, and the event model is different) I split the two and left the "Classic Environment" for others to develop. Also note that "Classic Environment" != "Classic VRML" (encoding); however, there is no support for the "Classic VRML" encoding (or the Compressed Binary Encoding) in X3Dng as those structures do not fit into the HTML5 environment as elements and attributes.
> From my standpoint serious discussions of X3Dng can be held anywhere. The document is public and I will be working on including and revising material based on development and reasonable suggestions. According to Consortium rules, the official discussion takes place within the X3D WG.
> Leonard Daly
>> For an outsider, it's difficult to know if it's worth commenting here or if serious discussions are held elsewhere, and the weight of your X3Dng specification document.
>> I'll just make a general remark. "Classic Environment" sounds a lot like "Classic VRML" (encoding). In both cases, I hope you don't equate "classic" with "obsolete", but I have doubts, to put it mildly. For instance in your first figure, the "Classic Environment" looks like it's frozen and kept only for the sake of compatibility with existing files (which is actually what you write above). It must be extended with "New nodes", but by writing "(also in Classic)" in the "DOM Environment" frame, that seems to imply it's a minor artifact nobody will be interested in.
>> On 4 nov. 2016, at 01:55, Leonard Daly wrote:
>>> I have formally submitted the "X3D Next Generation" specification document for Working Group review. The document is also publicly available at http://tools.realism.com/specification/x3d-next-generation
>>> . This document describes how X3D (as declarative 3D) is integrated into the HTML and DOM environment. Many new nodes are added to bring some capabilities up to current industry practice.
>>> This document is the initial public draft and may be updated or revised at any time. The version submitted to the WG is a copy of this content taken on 2016-11-03.
>>> Leonard Daly
>>> 3D Systems & Cloud Consultant
>>> LA ACM SIGGRAPH Chair
>>> President, Daly Realism - Creating the Future
>>> x3d-public mailing list
>>> x3d-public at web3d.org
> Leonard Daly
> 3D Systems & Cloud Consultant
> LA ACM SIGGRAPH Chair
> President, Daly Realism - Creating the Future
> x3d-public mailing list
> x3d-public at web3d.org
More information about the x3d-public