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

[GLG]

Len,

Consider this carefully. You know I don't give in easily to
competing 3D technologies. You remember IBM and Google. I
wasn't shy about telling my opinions, like on the front pack
of attack dogs defending territory. And even in this case I
was ready to charge; it sure is not easy to convince me of
something like this. I resisted change too. Until I realized
that I was not right. This is different. And the approach is
different. No sneaky attack or big marketing campaign to try
and kill X3D. Rather, an honest and friendly visit to come
ask for our opinions. No one has done this before. A big
gamble you might say, but I also believe the market strategy
is sound. The implementation may be a little hard and take
some time, but the basic ideas are too good not to act. We'd
take a greater risk not embracing these developments than
ignoring them. Besides, X3D will continue to be around. I
don't feel I am loosing that. And you know as much as I do
that, like you, I have a lot invested in X3D. CSSDOM may
just be the spark that wakes up 3D on the Internet(and thus
give X3D a boost). We all know this is bound to happen. The
question is 'when'? When the killer app arrives, that's
when. And in this case the killer app may just well be 'no
app'. Brilliant. 

As an artist, and because of the great talent you have, I
believe taking the opportunity to be one of the first
content developers getting initial exposure could really
mean this is your time to shine. What is a singer that
doesn't sing, a musician that doesn't play, and a world
builder that doesn't build?  What you have you will keep,
here is a chance to have more. But this is entirely your
decision to make, as this is only my opinion.

Lauren


 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: cbullard at hiwaay.net [mailto:cbullard at hiwaay.net]
>Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 1:26 PM
>To: info at 3dnetproductions.com
>Cc: 'Philipp Slusallek'; 'Joe D Williams'; 'Chris Marrin';
>x3d-public at web3d.org
>Subject: RE: [X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D
>HTML5meetingdiscussions:Declarative 3D interest group at
>W3C
>
>Doing some background reading, XML3D has this site.  This
>page has the
>presentations one might start with to compare the
>approaches:
>
>http://www.xml3d.org/2010/11/xml3d-presented-at-w3c-
>tpac/#more-268
>
>Other than X3D becoming mired in HTML, I've yet to see any
>advantages
>to this for authors, content owners or content companies.
>Convergence
>in code libraries for it's own sake is a weak reason.
>Promising but
>being unable to show why this would result in more 3D on
>the web or
>how it will improve standards without experience at that,
>and finally
>tieing the evolution of 3D content to multiple authorities
>for the
>choices made in the technical evolution of the standards
>seem
>daunting.  The only winners here are the university
>projects, the
>sponsors and the application programmers.  There is nothing
>for the
>author.
>
>So far, X3DOM is the most realistic proposal in terms of
>samples,
>implemented code, tested features, content resources and
>schedule.
>
>len
>
>
>Quoting GLG <info at 3dnetproductions.com>:
>
>>
>> Coming up to speed. Never had much time to look too deep
>> into this, especially that I wasn't sold on the idea plus
>> the holidays and everything. Thanks for your patience.
>>
>> Lauren
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Philipp Slusallek [mailto:slusallek at cs.uni-
>>> saarland.de]
>>> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 3:45 AM
>>> 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,
>>>
>>> It seems we are getting closer, thanks.
>>>
>>> WebGL is just a thin layer of top of OpenGL and nothing
>>> like
>>> declarative. So it for the same same reason people
>prefer
>>> X3D over
>>> coding at the OpenGL layer. As I have explained in one
>of
>>> my first
>>> emails, I believe that this layer is even more important
>to
>>> get
>>> acceptance for 3D in the Web space for the millions of
>Web
>>> developers.
>>>
>>> 	Philipp
>>>
>>> Am 03.01.2011 08:20, schrieb 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>