[x3d-public] Purpose of X3D

[Joe D Williams]

well, you can see that I was just getting inspired when I mistakenly 
hit the send button,,,,

Yves, I hope I made the point that ideas get composed into X3D by 
working (wg and bod consensus agreement on what is "working") 
examples, most of the time if possible, by prototype followed by 
'native' implementations. X3D wants to have everything running and all 
agree as early as possible. Really, no sense to ratify the spec until 
everyone agrees what the spec should say.

Ideally, when all is done and everyone is synchronized, then release 
the spec. Until then the publically available info was just current 
Draft stuff. The reality of the timing is that this respectful 
interval at least gives the original suggestor the chance to provide 
what ever the concensus produced, since the originator might have had 
other stuff to do besides turn the grinder himself and so may not 
immediately recognize the end product because the interfaces were 
'standardized' or blended into 'standard' names or made to be 
'validatable' by schema, the example is different, or changed 
entirely, in a different component, it does more, it does it 
differently, whatever. Because some times a good idea takes off.

But nowadays get what you suggest running in X3DOM or Cobweb, or 
freewrl BS or others listed at web3d.org. And still there is no 
current substitue for getting your stuff running in high perf 
standalone X3D browser. And it is amazing how BSContact free works in 
a frame of object in a web page. maybe there are others. Then you can 
see what X3DOM and cobweb and others have to match. Or your own 
player - whatever you are using for authortime and runtime and 
authoring in runtime. If you can do it in an X3D standalone player 
using prototype or get it into X3DOM by a script and some new 
keywords, then go there. Wherever it starts, it must wants to end up 
working everywhere in both in <x3d> and #X3D.

All Best,
Joe
ps: there are always specs to review and comment upon.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe D Williams" <joedwil at earthlink.net>
To: "Yves Piguet" <yves.piguet at gmail.com>
Cc: "doug sanden" <highaspirations at hotmail.com>; "X3D Public" 
<x3d-public at web3d.org>
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Purpose of X3D


>> What's the feeling of people involved with X3D ISO standardization?
>
> total Joy. Realtime interactive event-driven 3D everywhere on the 
> WWW.
> Lots of stuff is moving and deeper application areas and more 
> complete
> implementations of X3D are added daily.
>
> Well, by the definition I gave, X3DOM is a candidate implementation,
> as are several others. Currently the X3D WG is contemplating the
> candidates and the issues and figure out how to and what to define 
> in
> the final Web3D X3D ISOetc, and W3C submissions. Or, I should say
> initial CD submission. As far as I know the X3D wg has daily 
> responsibility for Working Draft and is probably early in the 
> Working Draft stage.  X3D may have what might be
> considered lots of source material to serve as elements of Working 
> Draft inputs with multiple independent free and open 
> implementations.
>
> Right now to me there seems to be highly dependent use of javascript 
> libraries and as we all know from past, sooner of later we will want 
> some good stuffs that X3D needs for performance built directly into 
> the host html browser. We got a big bag of that in Webgl:), SVG and 
> CSS, not to mention the greatly superior ecmascript engines and 
> implementations, and other html web browser security and other 
> feature support improvements
>
> For example, we don't want to have to depend upon html script and 
> DOM
> to compute several interpolators, but instead have the compute code 
> native to
> the html browser. I think this follows the idea of the way Webgl is
> now 'native' to the html web browser. Further along, how important 
> is
> it to preserve the idea of timestamps and event cascade of X3D, or 
> can
> we devise an ordered event system suitable for realistic hifi 
> realtime
> simulations from features of the DOM, or do we really need something 
> more from the
> (X)HTML DOM? And, of course we want a very straightforward lossless
> transformation from what we have now to what can runs inside <x3d> 
> ...
> </x3d>.
>
>> My next question would be about the kinds of "proposals" I've made 
>> ...
>
> Technically, most likely nobody will push proposals forward except 
> you. If what you have could be aimed at a specifiic working group 
> like CAD, HAnim, Medical, Geo then aim at that group. Join the list 
> and figure out how to find application interest, then show your 
> stuff. If this is something X3D can use, then your wg will push to 
> X3D wg and Bod and start a project. Excuse me if I say, then the 
> grind starts, Your prime responsibility is wide adoption. So, you 
> wish to get the widest range of implementions from most advanced 
> commercial (yes, the aim may be to add this to al BS, Ocatga, and 
> any ohers . Regardless, it is usually wise to get teh. Then you 
> would get consensus for draft, resources, etc.
>
> talk to
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Yves Piguet" <yves.piguet at gmail.com>
> To: "Joe D Williams" <joedwil at earthlink.net>
> Cc: "doug sanden" <highaspirations at hotmail.com>; "X3D Public"
> <x3d-public at web3d.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 8:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Purpose of X3D
>
>
> If I understand correctly, x3dom doesn't follow this path. Am I
> correct? Is it because of the complexity and tediousness? What's the
> feeling of people involved with X3D ISO standardization?
>
> My next question would be about the kinds of "proposals" I've made. 
> I
> guess they have zero chance of being considered. I had a vague hope
> that the more modest yet useful ones might have triggered the 
> interest
> of someone who could have pushed them forward, but even that seems
> crazily optimistic.
>
> Yves
>
> On 7 oct. 2016, at 16:37, Joe D Williams wrote:
>
> [...]
>> 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,
>