[x3d-public] Purpose of X3D

[Joe D Williams]

Hi Yves,

The folloning document describes how interested parties can submit any 
techology contributions to the Web3D Consortium for review and 
potential support of the Web3D Consortium standards-development 
process.

http://www.web3d.org/standards/submission-policy

not very clear from my description but very methodical and reliable 
steps to get standards-class keystrokes and art into the spec. .
Ideally make contact with a working group with enough documentation 
and examples to evaluate. Maybe use the web3d wiki, Complete 
assistance from the consortium to support the standards-track process 
is available if needed. Otherwise, if benchmarks are met in a 
convincing way with adoption support from other X3D implementations, 
you can probably control it all yourself.

Thanks and Best,
Joe



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yves Piguet" <yves.piguet at gmail.com>
To: "Joe D Williams" <joedwil at earthlink.net>
Cc: "X3D Public" <x3d-public at web3d.org>
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Purpose of X3D


Thanks. Not very clear, imo, but in itself that's also a part of the 
answer. The obvious conclusion is that I shouldn't bother.

Best,

Yves

On 7 oct. 2016, at 22:36, Joe D Williams wrote:

>> 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,
>