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

Tue Jan 4 13:24:16 PST 2011

It can all be done without the standards and is being done.  No doubt.

1.  Discussion is not that XML3D is competing.  It is that X3D is done.
Technically, it works.  XML3D is starting.  Can be a good thing.  As to is
it useful to me, as a builder almost all tool kits are.  I thrive at the
next level of integration.  As long as it works where it is sold, I am
little interested in the vertex economy.

2.  The market still thinks of web site designers as HTML gurus and that
under-represents the teams required.

XML3D is a bit strange.  It's like XML-Movie.  The XML part of what is
necessary is trivial to the actual properties of the medium.  That's why the
debate is over features.   Progress in this discussion can be made by a
feature summary of what XML3D offers that can then be compared to the
existing standard, X3D.

As an SGML expert originally, I'm not unfamiliar with a migration to a new
integrating piece.  It's expected.  On the other hand, content lives as long
as the platform that renders it does.  Then it is transformed and again, we
are all familiar with this.

3. The transparency of the process helps but ultimately companies that can
afford the programming decide what is in the next version of a platform.
The interests represented in the conversation outside your self, Joe, etc.
are Apple and Intel funded.  While no part of the discussion has been
predatory in that regard, these are the interests at hand willing to fund
the work.

4.  The chief advantage of HTML embedding is this is the one part of the web
where behavioral fidelity is strongest; therefore, the lifecycle and asset
protection can be best.  The problem of VRML then X3D has been fidelity but
only in the harder edgier cases in the last few years.   What isn't
resolvable out of implementation is can the same expectations for fidelity
now understood to be non-trivial and required for success be met by 3D in
the HTML containers.

I think so.  But it's another do-over and getting the value out of done
isn't.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: GLG [mailto:info at 3dnetproductions.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 2:54 PM
To: 'Philipp Slusallek'
Cc: 'Len Bullard'; x3d-public at web3d.org
Subject: RE: [X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D
HTML5meetingdiscussions:Declarative 3D interest group at W3C

>Lauren, can you please take over at this point :-).

:) I am glad to be of assistance. I owe you at least that
much.

Cheers,
Lauren

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Philipp Slusallek [mailto:slusallek at cs.uni-
>saarland.de]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 2:26 PM
>To: info at 3dnetproductions.com
>Cc: 'Len Bullard'; x3d-public at web3d.org
>Subject: Re: [X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D
>HTML5meetingdiscussions:Declarative 3D interest group at
>W3C
>
>Hi,
>
>I could not have said it better. That is exactly where I
>hope we will be
>going.
>
>Lauren, can you please take over at this point :-).
>
>	Philipp
>
>Am 04.01.2011 17:44, schrieb GLG:
>>> The bet this time is direct browser rendering
>>> ensures that the
>>> engines required (debate plugins but demonstrably, they
>>> work) can be more
>>> universal (standard) and less maintenance prone
>therefore
>>> will be used by
>>> the class of users who can use them:  app builders.  Not
>>> Joe Homepage.  He
>>> uses what app builders build.
>>>
>>> The history of 3D on the web is those apps don't get
>built.
>>> Here is a
>>> failure of imagination.  XTraNormal took a similar
>>> environment, added
>>> reasonable text to voice, used a gestural library, a
>drag
>>> and drop and
>>> created a pop phenomenon, thus, winning on the street.
>>>
>>> Instead, 3D is in web standards hell.
>>
>>
>> There is a lot of truth to that. And meanwhile, 3D worlds
>> and games that do not care about standards are sailing
>> along, "winning on the street" as you say. Largely
>because
>> end-users do not care about that sort of things. Builders
>> do. So in the end, it is the quality of the content that
>> wins on the street, not the standards. IOW, standards can
>> benefit builders but not really content consumers, unless
>of
>> course those consumers happen to be builders as in SL
>(not
>> that SL abides to any standard that I know of. Any take
>on
>> this?)
>>
>> Anyway, it's easy to agree on the above, but, ultimately,
>if
>> you can facilitate content delivery to the consumer that
>> always helps. With OT, what I find is, I first need to
>sell
>> the plugin (download) before I can sell the content; as
>in,
>> I need to sell the packaging before the product. Compound
>> that with the technicalities of installation, and the
>magic
>> is gone, I loose the immersion, the dropout rate is too
>high
>> and that's wasted; I need to compete at the 2D level and
>> then some, before my 3D content can even stand a chance
>to
>> sell itself. That's harder. But, if on the other hand my
>3D
>> content could be immediately exposed that becomes a
>> non-issue, and Joe Homepage might be interested to do it
>> too, inciting more and more like him to go 3D. The
>> cumulative effect of that could very well just propel the
>> consumer market to 3D. Only Flash could match it, and we
>all
>> know how effective that is (ex: XTraNormal). Since Flash
>can
>> actually exist inside the 3D space, imagine the
>bombshell. I
>> think Joe Homepage is much more capable than is given
>> credit.
>>
>> Granted, we first have to go back to VRML1 for this to
>> happen; we need to start somewhere, but progress should
>come
>> steadily since we know exactly where to go. There are
>also
>> improvements to plugin installation in the pipeline to
>> facilitate the existing scenario. I'd rather play on both
>> front, so that one may lead to the other, until maybe the
>> first can sustain itself. X3D plugin improvements will
>have
>> a determinant effect on that happening or not, since they
>> have a long lead-time advantage. Both content delivery
>> methods can be complementary though (regardless of
>> standards), and either way, overall, this is win-win.
>Now,
>> that gets me dreaming again. Imagine what would happen if
>we
>> loaded an X3D plugin running Flash inside something like
>> XML3D? The possibilities are mind-boggling. :) Perhaps
>none
>> of this is useful to you, just worth considering.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Lauren
>>
>>
>>
>>   >-----Original Message-----
>>> From: Len Bullard [mailto:cbullard at hiwaay.net]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 8:34 AM
>>> 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
>>>
>>> The dream?  I dunno.  I just needed something to
>decorate
>>> songs. :)
>>>
>>> It can be done with or without standards for 3D.  This
>is
>>> purely a market to
>>> customer challenge.  For this kind of application, X3D
>is
>>> in no way
>>> deficient.
>>>
>>> The VRML design is resilient as evidenced by the
>>> reincorporation of it in
>>> every new proposed design-cum-standard.   Discussions of
>>> strengths enhance
>>> resiliency.
>>>
>>> X3D works today if you have the chops to build with it.
>>> Daunting, but for
>>> sampling to video, worth the time and cheap say FREE.
>>>
>>> XML3D is where VRML 1.0 was when the Intervista browser
>was
>>> created.
>>> Whatever advantages accrue to the code base, they have
>to
>>> ultimately be
>>> realized in applications used by the workforce or they
>are
>>> hobbyist
>>> technology.  The bet this time is direct browser
>rendering
>>> ensures that the
>>> engines required (debate plugins but demonstrably, they
>>> work) can be more
>>> universal (standard) and less maintenance prone
>therefore
>>> will be used by
>>> the class of users who can use them:  app builders.  Not
>>> Joe Homepage.  He
>>> uses what app builders build.
>>>
>>> The history of 3D on the web is those apps don't get
>built.
>>> Here is a
>>> failure of imagination.  XTraNormal took a similar
>>> environment, added
>>> reasonable text to voice, used a gestural library, a
>drag
>>> and drop and
>>> created a pop phenomenon, thus, winning on the street.
>>>
>>> Instead, 3D is in web standards hell.
>>>
>>> len
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: GLG [mailto:info at 3dnetproductions.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 1:45 AM
>>> To: 'Len Bullard'
>>> 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
>>>
>>> Len wrote;
>>>> model (eg, XtraNormal, Jing, YouTube, etc.)  A services
>>>> model for any of
>>>> these technologies relies on content builders creating
>>>> libraries of
>>>> reusuable parts but this as a content requirement
>doesn't
>>>> require a standard
>>>> as it does an integrated builder system that is easy to
>>> use
>>>> and compose.
>>>> IOW, YouTube has a format standard:  MP4.
>>>
>>>
>>> Building point and click persistent scenes/worlds seems
>>> very
>>> close here. It is not difficult to imagine web only
>>> interfaces to this, even using just primitives, and
>>> supported by SQL back-ends in a manner akin to SL. It
>looks
>>> like all of the parts are there or will be. It is only a
>>> matter of putting it together and I suspect many will
>do,
>>> thus turning the web into the giant virtual space we've
>>> been
>>> waiting for. At the very least, the potential for this
>is
>>> enormous. Maybe year 2012 (or 2013 who knows) would be
>the
>>> year when it reaches critical mass and the web finally
>>> turns
>>> 3D. Reality is made of dreams like this. This dream I'm
>>> really starting to believe in.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Lauren
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> X3D-Public mailing list
>> X3D-Public at web3d.org
>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org