[X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D HTML5 meetingdiscussions:Declarative 3D interest group at W3C

[Russ Kinter]

I don't think backward compatibility will be an issue at all, because with
so much dependency on separate html browser vendors the resulting broken
functionality will make us feel like we're looking at VRML 1

tc
Russ Kinter 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: x3d-public-bounces at web3d.org [mailto:x3d-public-bounces at web3d.org]
> On Behalf Of Philipp Slusallek
> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 12:54 AM
> To: info at 3dnetproductions.com
> Cc: x3d-public at web3d.org
> Subject: Re: [X3D-Public] Fwd: Re: [X3D] X3D HTML5
> meetingdiscussions:Declarative 3D interest group at W3C
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I fully agree that backward compatibility is important in general -- but
> I would not want to put backwards compatibility as our main objective.
> This is not a Web3D working group.
> 
> Instead we should strive for the best possible 3D within the Web/HTML
> world going forward, but see that we can maintain as much compatibility
> as possible where it is necessary. This is where I am happy that we have
> Johannes on board, who has created X3DOM primarily with that aspect in
> mind. We already had quite some discussions on this topic.
> 
> However, we should also look at things in perspective and be pragmatic:
> X3D's adoption compared to the Web as a whole is rather small (BTW, is
> there any reliable statistics available, like # of X3D files on the Web,
> size of the user community, use of feature set, or such?).
> 
> BTW, backwards compatibility can come in many ways: from the ability to
> simply load X3D files (which ones? there are so many profiles and
> encodings) to a converter. Actually, Kristian's X3D to XML3D converter
> is already doing a pretty good job, while being only a side project so
far.
> 
> 
> 	Philipp
> 
> Am 29.12.2010 22:12, schrieb GLG:
> > John A. Stewart wrote:
> >> 2) *somehow* keep the ability to *somehow* render older
> >> scenes so that users have continuity with their content
> >> over years and years.
> >>
> >
> > I tend to second that. I hope we are not looking to
> > cannibalize ourselves with yet another standard LOL. It is
> > good to see Chris M. back here after such a long time, but
> > if I am to get behind this idea/proposal and X3DOM or
> > anything else for that matter, I would be interested for the
> > eventual full implementation of existing standards. That may
> > or may not be possible in practice, but achieving
> > compatibility at the very least, so that 'old' worlds can
> > still link to new ones at a minimum. This, as a consensus of
> > the direction going forward; a certain persistence of
> > vision.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Lauren
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > X3D-Public mailing list
> > X3D-Public at web3d.org
> > http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> X3D-Public mailing list
> X3D-Public at web3d.org
> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org