[X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D HTML5meetingdiscussions:Declarative 3D interest group at W3C

[GLG]

Hello Philipp and all,

Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I have never expected much
backward compatibility from the HTML version of 3D (whatever
that turns out to be). It would be nice, and that is why I
like the X3DOM version, but my concern is largely with the
forward ability to upgrade content. X3D's history, stability
and strenght make it the ideal candidate model IMO, and
perhaps that made me sound like wanting backward
compatibility. It is the content upgrade path that I am
mostly concerned with, the efficiency in which that content
will be rendered, along with an outlook of what that content
might look like and of course the ability to transcode. In
terms of capabilities, that is likely to look a lot like
X3D, perhaps not in form, granted that, but in function.
Nevertheless, instead of discarding what I knew we would be
aiming at, I tried to preserve it. That was a bit
contradictary to your originally stated goals, but I am now
beginning to better understand what it is you are actually
trying to accomplish. And as such, I am willing to
participate, because ultimately, our objectives can actually
coincide. So let me say to X3D lovers and content developers
out there - please bear with it if this gets a little hard
to follow. It may turn out to be a crucial exercise that can
actually help X3D, not hurt it as it may appear. So no more
politics from me, let's get on with the business of making
the best declarative 3D DOM we can conjure up. 

Having said that, my question is what's wrong with WebGL?
Isn't that the perfect way to get to where we want? 

Lauren



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Philipp Slusallek [mailto:slusallek at cs.uni-
>saarland.de]
>Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 5:40 PM
>To: info at 3dnetproductions.com
>Cc: 'Joe D Williams'; 'Chris Marrin'; 'Len Bullard'; x3d-
>public at web3d.org
>Subject: Re: [X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D
>HTML5meetingdiscussions:Declarative 3D interest group at
>W3C
>
>Hi,
>
>Yes, I am promoting XML3D but I am also defending the
>general idea to
>think about doing 3D the Web way. I am perfectly open to
>discuss
>changing XML3D using better features and approaches -- if
>people make
>concrete suggestions.
>
>And yes, not everything we wish we had is working yet, but
>this is
>expected after only about a year and a half. And given that
>we have a
>reasonable spec, two native (Firefox and Chrome) and one
>WebGL based
>implementation, and a couple of projects that are starting
>to use it, I
>am quite happy with what we have achieved so far. With
>AnySL and XFlow,
>we will soon have a number of capabilities that are not
>even in X3D yet,
>which is not too bad either.
>
>PROTOS and X3D event propagation are not in XML3D, and we
>are not sure
>that we really need the latter, as I have discussed (BTW,
>at least the
>first and I believe also the second is not in X3DOM either,
>at least
>when running integrated with WebGL).
>
>While this probably mean that complex X3D scenes may not be
>easily
>transcribed into running within the Web browser (neither
>XML3D nor
>X3DOM), this backward compatibility is not our main
>concern, as I
>explained earlier. Having said this, it would be nice to be
>able to
>convert as much as possible, though. There may even be way
>in which at
>least some of that functionality can be transcoded, e.g.
>using some sort
>of wrapper scripts for the SAI interfaces mapped to their
>DOM
>counterparts -- but full compatibility seems really hard.
>
>BTW, our next meeting to discuss joint ideas between XML3D
>and X3DOM is
>scheduled for early this year.
>
>	Philipp
>
>
>Am 02.01.2011 22:15, schrieb GLG:
>> Hello Philipp,
>>
>> I sense you're a bit exhausted with my "political"
>arguments
>> so I'll try to restrain myself and be more concrete,
>> although the more I read and think about your own posts
>on
>> XML3D, the more I feel you are just as heavily promoting
>> XML3D. So let's say we're even and get past that.
>>
>> Moving on. One of the first things you said was that
>"making
>> the DOM a great declarative 3D scene graph should be our
>> main goal here." From this premise, it becomes apparent
>that
>> it is your contention that little if nothing of X3D
>should
>> be salvaged. You do acknowledge that some parts such as
>> synchronized events, data propagation and prototypes are
>> worth considering under different implementations,
>> emulations or simply imitated, but I can't help notice
>that
>> these parts are all but largely missing from XML3D. You
>> often point to incomplete or planned work, or to obscure
>> other items that are also not quite ready but expected to
>> work. Plus, we have barely touched the subjects of how
>> complexe, multi-layered and flexible PROTOS can be, and
>how
>> a simlulation would work across domains. In short, a lot
>of
>> conjectures, expectations and assumptions, to pretty much
>> start from scratch on the way to a 3D web. Not only would
>it
>> be necessary to assemble, debug, rebuild, upgrade a
>number
>> of parts to make everything work, we also have to contend
>> with the fact that there is no upgrade path in sight nor
>> even a hint of compatibility with existing standards. We
>can
>> transcode 3D objects but most if not all existing
>> interaction and behavior would be lost. In essence, this
>is
>> like going back to VRML1 without any real reason to
>believe
>> this would result in a wider acceptance of 3D on the web
>> (Let's not forget that VRML1 and VRML2 were very simple
>to
>> use). Isn't that a whole lot of wishful thinking?
>>
>> On the other hand, X3DOM based on WebGL is also being
>> proposed. WebGL which is really like an evolved subset of
>> OpenGL, the later which has always been the underlying
>> foundation of VRML and X3D (I don't have to tell you this
>> and I'm simplifying but not much). X3DOM itself is
>> recognizable X3D. So nothing is radically different here,
>> and existing artwork have a better chance of salvation.
>It
>> also does achieve the goal of rendering 3D in a web
>browser,
>> with the distinct advantage that an upgrade path to full
>> fledged X3D will remain available for as long as we need
>and
>> want it.
>>
>> We are forced to generalize for the sake of brevity, but
>> what am I missing here Philipp. I find it extremely
>> difficult to get my head around to accepting XML3D. That
>is
>> without mentioning the potential loss of 14+ years of
>> development in interactive VRML/X3D. Not just my work,
>but
>> countless others. It is a very big step and a huge leap
>of
>> faith you are asking. And for what? Really the benefits
>are
>> not all that clear, and performance would suffer
>> tremendously IMO. I find it hard to imagine running a
>world
>> like Office Towers over Javascript and CSS in a web
>browser.
>> That just seems ludicrous. There has to be a better
>> solution. I really think 3D in a browser should be a
>gateway
>> step to more solid applications when it's time to run
>> processing intensive, memory gobbling worlds; at least
>for
>> some time until it all get sorted out.
>>
>> I hope these were technical issues enough. Please do not
>> give up on me just yet. I am a reasonable person. As long
>I
>> am still listening, I can be convinced if I believe the
>> arguments presented. Perhaps you could talk about what
>parts
>> of XML3D you would be willing to remove in favor of
>X3DOM,
>> so that more people would like the outcome.
>>
>> Lauren
>>
>>