[x3d-public] Purpose of X3D

[Joe D Williams]

Hi Doug,

> For example if I propose a change to ...

As I understand how the process works, you would want to propose the 
feature to the x3d-public and at some point directly to the X3D 
working Group, where we could get member concensus to incorporate the 
idea. Then an existing or new working group would produce a consensus 
Working Draft that described changes and additions to the standard, 
and at least one (open preferred) runnng example. Those deliverables 
would be examined by the X3D WG and when consensus agreement is 
reached the proposal would be forwarded to the BOD for approval.

With approval of the bod the originators or Web3D editor(s) would 
upgrade the Working Draft to what is called a Commitee Draft (CD) and 
would then apply to ISO to create a project with a description and 
timetable accompanied by the Committee Draft (CD). The ISO member 
nations and member organizations (of which Web3D is one) would review 
the proposal and CD text and art then formally submit their comments 
and vote to approve or disaprove the concept.

If CD is approved for advancement, then all comments are incorporated 
and new documentation is fully integrated into the standard to create 
the next draft to be considered. This is called the Draft 
International Standard (DIS) which is again is passed from the 
originating wg to the X3D wg, then to the Bod for approval. Now we 
must also examine second and subsequent implementations actually 
running in multiple X3D tools. If approved again by Web3D, the DIS is 
submitted to ISO and the members again provide comments and a vote to 
go ahead or drop.

The comments from DIS are incorporated into what should be the final 
product, called FDIS Final Draft International Standard. This is again 
run through the web3d approval process (originating wg, X3D wg, and 
bod) and resubmitted to ISO. If DIS comments have been apropriately 
dealt with, then the document should get to final status as IS, 
International Standard.

So yes it is complex and tedious dealing with general and technical 
inputs and comments from a wide range of interested parties over what 
might be a long period of time but that is also what keeps the 
standard more or less immune to manipulation and false paths,

Thanks and Best,
Joe


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "doug sanden" <highaspirations at hotmail.com>
To: "X3D Public" <x3d-public at web3d.org>
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Purpose of X3D


>>
>>  1) X3D is for static models only (no texture). This is a very good
>>  match. There are just a few things that X3D doesn't handle and 
>> most of
>>  those are having to deal with interchange with other formats.
>
> .web3dit image file format
> I have a text-only image format .web3dit (i=image t=text (vs xml or 
> json)) I could donate. Handles 2D, cube and 3D textures. Then web3d 
> would have its own image format too. (Its really just pixeltexture 
> in a separate file, with a few tricks). I use it for round-trip 
> testing. But if you are desparate for web3d to own texture file 
> formats it might be a good starting point.
> https://sourceforge.net/p/freewrl/git/ci/develop/tree/freex3d/src/lib/opengl/LoadTextures.c
> L.620-905
>
>>
>> Given that we have maybe 7 part time people (right now) where does 
>> X3D
>>  go?
>> If you have other
>>  contributions, please feel free to state so along with what you 
>> think
>>  it would take to get there from X3D V3.3.
>
> IDEA: onus shifting: When someone proposes something new, they also 
> submit refactored specs.
> For example if I propose a change to rendering modulation, 
> Protos_II, .web3dit image file format - I would need to also submit 
> refactored specs pages that show how the old would keep working/stay 
> valid in specs, while allowing the new.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> x3d-public mailing list
> x3d-public at web3d.org
> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org