Re: [www-vrml] Tim BL Is Baffled, Too

[Alan Hudson <giles@yumetech.com>]

Tony Parisi wrote:
> Second, there is a fallacy here about process. To think that hundreds of
> users, authors and students you cite can *design a system* together is quite
> naïve. It just doesn't work that way. The broader group can be deeply
> involved in defining requirements and reviewing designs all throughout the
> process, but the actual design can only be done by a *very small* group. In
> a perfect world, that's 1-5 people. With working groups and open process, it
> tends to be double that size. But beyond size, that the process simply
> becomes unmanageable.
I've seen good results in larger groups, but I think they had a very 
strong architectural foundation.  The OpenGL process and OpenES process 
both seem to incorporate more contributors then X3D with good results. 
We are moving towards this model.  At the beginnings of the X3D effort I 
felt excluded, but that was back in 98-99 when one company was basically 
going to design the whole thing.  Today we have about 10 active 
contributors on a weekly basis.  If we can move that 20-30 then we have 
the foundation to really answer some problems.

One area I'd like to move towards is a more implement before spec 
procedure.  In the early days of VRML it was not very possible for a 
non-browser implementor to propose a new node/feature.  Without a 
codebase to prototype from your really shooting blind.

The advent of several open source codes has made it possible for any 
programmer to prototype a feature.  Its not easy, but its doable.  I'd 
like to see us move towards a system where prototype implementations of 
a new feature are shown to the X3D group for possible inclusion.  Right 
now we've been tracking a bit farther ahead, ie needing 2 
implementations by ISO approval time.

I feel we have crossed the line in terms of offering modern graphics 
capabilities in an open standard.  The graphics features in ammendment 
1, Shaders and Advanced Textures bring X3D content authors comparable 
functionality to a game engine.  How quickly solid implementations come 
about will determine how far behind state of the art we are in practice.

My rambling point is I believe we can take an open standard and keep 
pace with current technology.  Its definately more work to document and 
debate but we get a better solution out of it.

I encourage you to read the proposals we've put together as proposed 
extensions to X3D.  These proposals represent various starting points 
for features people have asked for in VRML/X3D.   I should acknowledge 
that a lot of the work on this page is not just Xj3D work, but 
represents concepts and contributions from a wide range of the community 
which we are trying to document and move forward:

http://www.xj3d.org/extensions/index.html

--
Alan Hudson
President: Yumetech, Inc.                              www.yumetech.com/
Web3D Open Source Chair         www.web3d.org/x3d/workgroups/source.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
for list subscription/unsubscription,
go to http://www.web3d.org/cgi-bin/public_list_signup/lwgate/listsavail.html