[x3d-public] Call to Progress on X3D V4

Joe D Williams joedwil at earthlink.net
Wed Jan 13 17:03:56 PST 2016

> X3Dom is a proprietary format ...

Really, is that true? What part is proprietary? Isn't all the X3Dom 
code open?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "doug sanden" <highaspirations at hotmail.com>
To: <x3d-public at web3d.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Call to Progress on X3D V4

OK thanks Leonard.
I don't think I can help - not a dom or california expert.
But I gather no or not-enough key players have submitted what they are 
doing for consideration as a standard ie X3Dom is a proprietary 
That -and the proliferation of other formats like GLAM- may indicated 
investor desire for prorpietary / copyright /patented technology with 
the upside potential of 'lock-in' and 'switching costs'.  Lets call 
this the LOCKIN hypothesis for format proliferation.
If LOCKIN is the motivation, then one thing web3d.org can do is sell 
proprietary lock-in formats. Take v3.3 and scramble it through a 
translator/generator so it looks different, and sell it as a 
proprietary format, with lockin/switching costs for users, pleasing to 
investors. Except _keep_ the scrambler/translator/generator pattern. 
So that X3D files can be quickly translated into the proprietary 
Likewise if you break out the details for all the issues, even though 
we may not be dom experts, we may come up with ideas.
For example Creative Strategy (a book) shows how to break a 
problem/issue into elements. Then look in other domains for solutions 
to each element. Then pick a creative combination of the element 
solutions into a whole solution.
For example if you could break out for us the elements of why DOM 
integration is desired. I gather the cobweb v3.3 approach isn't dom 
integrated. What's wrong with cobweb, and what's so much better about 
x3dom, for example, and give details of why one is popular in 
california, and the other not. Then with the elements, we can look and 
see if there's something inbetween.
For example being able to do movietexture may be easier with dom 
integration. OK but then could the node-specific implementation of a 
non-dom x3d include dom functionality? Or perhaps you want to be able 
to do jQuery. OK could there be a special xQuery for x3d, and jQuery 
delegates to it? And so forth.
The more breakout of the issues you give, the more chance a non-dom, 
non-california expert can chime in.

Creative Strategy - Airdrie Innovation 
Prosperity through productivity, productivity through innovation, 
innovation through culture, culture through aggregated and 
disseminated insights and processes, in Airdrie Alberta Canada

Creative Strategy - Airdrie Innovation 
Prosperity through productivity, productivity through innovation, 
innovation through culture, culture through aggregated and 
disseminated insights and processes, in Airdrie Alberta Canada

From: x3d-public <x3d-public-bounces at web3d.org> on behalf of Leonard 
Daly <web3d at realism.com>
Sent: January 11, 2016 7:46 PM
To: x3d-public at web3d.org
Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Call to Progress on X3D V4


Thanks for your reply. The Consortium has known this time would be 
coming for at least 2 years, probably closer to 4. As a standards 
organization, the Consortium should not be pushing something new; 
however, there is considerable investment in the past and that has 
been one of the strengths of X3D. Code from 20 years ago can still be 

>From everything that I have seen in 20 years working with HTML; 
applications that are going to run in the browser, need to work with 
and interact with the DOM. I am happy to consider any implementation 
that successfully does so.

Right now work in the Consortium is on polishing V3.3. As far as I can 
tell, the only active work on X3D with HTML is work I am doing and 
occasional reviews by the X3D Working Group.

It is important to pay attention to what the marketplace is 
developing, but the proposals coming out (GLAM, A-Frame, etc.) do not 
support X3D or any structures from X3D. I believe that there is a lot 
of maturation already for parts of the environment. The Consortium 
could play a very strong role in steering the direction of declarative 
3D. We will have no role if we just sit on the sidelines and watch.

In the past the Consortium succeeded by lasting longer than anyone 
else. This time is different because the organizations involves are 
bigger (Google, Facebook), more diverse (Mozilla, Hollywood studios, 
startups in San Francisco, Silicon Valley, Los Angeles, San Diego; 
just to name the major centers in California), and multiple industries 
(3D printing, entertainment, healthcare and wellness, industrial 
maintenance). There is no lasting out the others now.

Leonard Daly

>From my perspective^, V4 has had to 'burn the candle from both ends' - 
discover what's possible/doable/practical in html/webgl while moving 
x3d in that direction. So being too quick/early with a V4 may be 
sub-optimal.  Maybe V4 is the wrong name. For this stage of the game.
What might help is starting a new series of standards from 1.0 ie 
webx3dA 1.0, webx3dB 1.0 with A being the X3Dom style and B being the 
cobweb style. That would allow for a C, D or anything else that comes 
a long. Then if/when the world chooses a winner, when the dust settles 
a bit more, rename it.
In other words, I think you could/should be capturing things as they 
mature naturally, rather than steering/forcing the whole process. 
Relax a bit.
^about me:
I'm a self-declared pseudo expert in VR: I follow in others footsteps 
and try and catch on.
* I've worked in spaghetti C native code in project freeWRL for 6 
* taught game programming course in DX/C++ 6 week
* animated an industrial simulator in .wrl for a year
* modeled a historical townsite project in blender, exported to x3d 
for flux and kml for googleEarth  and ported x3d to x3dom and cobweb :
And currently working toward accommodating HMD emulators and desktop 
configurations in freewrl (still native/C code, V3.3).
Before that, 2 decades of photogrammetric systems engineering and 
stereo machine vision algorithms.
Airdrie Historical Virtual 
Airdrie Historical Virtual Tour - 3D rendering in googleEarth, virtual 
reality and webgl of early Airdrie,AB townsite, with photos placed

From: x3d-public 
<x3d-public-bounces at web3d.org><mailto:x3d-public-bounces at web3d.org> on 
behalf of David Murphy <d.murphy at cs.ucc.ie><mailto:d.murphy at cs.ucc.ie>
Sent: January 11, 2016 5:35 AM
To: Leonard Daly
x3dom-users at lists.sourceforge.net<mailto:x3dom-users at lists.sourceforge.net>; 
X3D Graphics public mailing list
Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Call to Progress on X3D V4

hi Leonard,

I completely understand your frustration with the situation.
Looking at things objectively I believe that the recent phenomenal 
interest in VR has taken the community by surprise. The X3D/VRML 
community has been comfortable operating at a particular pace, however 
circumstances are overtaking us.

I was preparing the first lecture of my Semester 2 VR class over the 
weekend, and was taken aback by the sheer number of startup (or should 
it be upstart) attempts at developing a ‘VR’ language/platform 
(proprietary or open).

This ‘new’ VR industry is either unaware of X3D or has chosen to 
bypass, for whatever reason, the standard.
If this isn’t addressed soon X3D may become irrelevant, which none of 
us want to see.

I think one of the fundamental challenges facing the X3D WG and 
community of users and developers, is simply the lack of awareness of 
the standard in the VR industry.

I’m not a member of the WG, however as a member of the X3D community I 
genuinely appreciate the efforts of the WG, and so I will do whatever 
I can to promote/champion X3D.

rgds Dave
David Murphy

Department of Computer Science
Room 1.77
Western Gateway Building
University College Cork

e: d.murphy at cs.ucc.ie<mailto:d.murphy at cs.ucc.ie>
map: http://bit.ly/WGB_UCC
w: http://multimedia.ucc.ie
w: http://www.imclab.ucc.ie
w: http://www.cs.ucc.ie/staff/dmurphy.html

On 11 Jan 2016, at 06:04, Leonard Daly 
<web3d at realism.com<mailto:web3d at realism.com>> wrote:

Last week I sent a message to the X3D WG about my concerns on lack of 
progress for developing a V4 specification. This message is expanding 
the reach of the original message and providing additional requested 
material, specifically examples of situations where I would want 
and/or expect X3D to run in a browser. The list of examples is being 
expanded as developments occur.

The marketplace is making significant progress in commercialization of 
virtual and augmented reality. There is no standard format for 
expressing 3D content. The marketplace will choose at least one format 
and it will not likely be X3D.  Already there are alternative markup 
languages emerging that attempt to do what X3D has been doing for 
decades: create an HTML like language for 3D graphics.  GLAM is an 
example proposed by Tony Parisi, and most recently Mozilla’s A-frame, 
released 3 weeks ago, both attempting to speak in the language of web 
developers to bring VR/AR to the browser.

I am very frustrated in the lack of progress of the Working Group in 
developing a specification for X3D V4. There are number of issues that 
have been raised about the fundamentals of designs of X3D that appear 
to be incompatible with an HTML/DOM environment. A partial list 
includes the following:
* name-scope handling
* scripting
* interfaces to the nodes and fields through the DOM API
* event handling
* profile structure and contents
* newly supported formats (geometry and media)

Examples of X3D/X3DOM: 
There are other concerns about event model that are not expressed in 
these examples mostly due to being unable to create an example that 
clearly shows the problem. It does exists and you may see some of that 
in sporadic or jerky movement in the animation examples using X3DOM.

I have a concept specification that is getting updated at 
http://tools.realism.com/specification/x3d-v40. The was first sent to 
the X3D WG in November and has had a couple of other discussions.

My specific technical concerns with the specification are listed in 
the Author's Notes at 

Most importantly, it is not clear to me who the WG believes is the 
target audience for the specification and how the specification will 
meet that audience’s needs.

As Co-Chair on Sabbatical and current member of the WG, I need to take 
some responsibility for not getting there. I have been working on 
developing a new specification and the beginning of an open-source 
web-based application for building scenes in the new specification. 
The web application is called “Basx3D - 3D the HTML Way”. I have 
posted an article about it’s initial release - 
http://realism.com/blog/basx3d. This post and one describing the X3D 
V4 proposal are publicly available.

The application is targeted at web developers who do not need to know 
the details of creating an X3D by hand. The concept was based on 
Unreal Engine and Unity editors. I will be continuing development of 
both the application and proposal on a frequent and regular basis. 
Basx3D and the proposed specification function as a two-way 
development effort with Basx3D reflecting the proposal and providing 
implementation information and experience back to the specification.

Although outside of its scope, the WG must be aware of the audience to 
which the standard is written, and the audience to which the standard 
is being promoted.  This concept is crucial to the future adoption of 
X3D and should ultimately be agreed upon by the BOD, but the WG needs 
to understand and follow this strategy which will ultimately influence 
prioritization of WG activity.

I am firmly committed to an open, royalty free, ISO ratified standard 
that communicates 3D data and its behaviors over networks, especially 
the dominant global network which is the internet, and which 
universally supports HTML5.  I don’t want to see the decades of work 
and passion that have been invested in the standards maintained and 
promoted by the Web3D Consortium relegated to the corridors of 
obscurity.  Because of many trends in software and hardware, a nexus 
of opportunity has been created like never before of which we can take 
advantage to catapult the Consortium’s standards to significant global 
adoption.  Let’s not miss this chance!

Leonard Daly
Basx3D and X3D V4 Specification Proposal Author

In Full Support
Mike Aratow
Treasurer, Web3D Consortium

*Leonard Daly*
X3D Co-Chair
Cloud Consultant
President, Daly Realism - /Creating the Future/

x3d-public mailing list
x3d-public at web3d.org<mailto:x3d-public at web3d.org>

x3d-public mailing list
x3d-public at web3d.org<mailto:x3d-public at web3d.org>

Leonard Daly
X3D Co-Chair
Cloud Consultant
President, Daly Realism - Creating the Future


> _______________________________________________
> x3d-public mailing list
> x3d-public at web3d.org
> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org

More information about the x3d-public mailing list