[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Public WebGL] A Declarative node set for WebGL?



On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Thatcher Ulrich <tu@tulrich.com> wrote:
> </lurk>
>
> My 2 cents:
>
> A 3d scene graph layered on top of WebGL (and/or other rendering
> backends) in the form of a library: sure, the more the merrier --
> WebGL should try to be functional enough to make this work well.
>
> A 3d scene graph standardized into HTML: premature.  Despite many
> attempts over the decades, there does not exist a one-size-fits-all
> scene graph that is small enough to be a good standard.  Maybe someday
> there will be, but HTML standardization is not the venue to discover
> it.
>
> One thing I *would* like to see is a good way to reflect an HTML DOM
> subtree into a WebGL texture.  I think this would enable practically
> all of the worthwhile use cases of DOM in 3D.  If a dominant scene
> graph library emerges out of that, then think about standardizing it.

This would certainly be useful. How would input events work? Is there
a way to synthesize a mouse press at a given (x, y) coordinate in the
DOM tree?

-Ken

> -T
>
> <lurk>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>> I didn't imply it was a simpler WebGL.  I said it is an alternative
>> declarative format for WebGL which as I understand it is not a declarative
>> model.  Else, why this discussion?  I look forward to reading the schema.
>>
>> Spinning boxes don't interest me.  People who say scene graphs are only good
>> for spinning boxes never used one.   But scene graphs are just one model.
>>
>> Is WebGL a good thing?  It's another thing.  For many projects the current
>> plug-ins are more than adequate.  Since there is X3D work in progress to
>> work with WebGL, alternatives to that should be understood for their
>> advantages.
>>
>> A declarative format does have the advantage of being easily manipulated by
>> other standard toolkits.  That's good.  On the other hand, if as with HTML5,
>> it is yet another parse model as well, that's bad.
>>
>> len
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-public_webgl@khronos.org [mailto:owner-public_webgl@khronos.org]
>> On Behalf Of Chris Marrin
>> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 8:11 PM
>> To: public webgl
>> Subject: Re: [Public WebGL] A Declarative node set for WebGL?
>>
>>
>> On Feb 25, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Len Bullard wrote:
>>
>>> Don't we already have multiple declarative formats that can be built over
>> WebGL?   What is the advantage of baking yet another one into WebGL itself?
>> Because it maps more directly to the native WebGL data structures?  Or
>> because it has the WebGL object model baked into the declarative nodes?
>>
>> I don't really see it as a "simplified WebGL". But it would perhaps be a bit
>> simpler to get up a simple spinning box with the declarative form than with
>> WebGL and JavaScript. The big advantage is that you tie into the DOM and all
>> its features much more tightly. The browser knows when the DOM tree has been
>> mutated, either structurally or by changing attributes or CSS properties.
>> That information can be used to rerender the 3D scene, but you can't get at
>> it from WebGL today. A declarative form would also compute transforms from
>> the root to the leaf nodes natively and can do so efficiently by caching
>> intermediate results and knowing where transforms are animating.
>>
>> I don't see this as "yet another 3D scene graph format" I see it as a
>> declarative form of WebGL. If you accept the premise that WebGL is "a good
>> thing" then I think its easier to see this as the logical companion.
>>
>>>
>>> In VRML 2.0, the debate over object/markup impedance mismatching was long.
>> However, it made the point that interoperability via data transfer (bits on
>> the wire, as Bray says) is very limited particularly where rendering and
>> behavioral fidelity have to be very strong across platforms.
>>>
>>> If I understand you, the main advantage of your proposal is the DOM
>> scripting is simplified for those authors who want to instance and navigate
>> directly in the WebGL objects.  Is that right?
>>
>> Again, I don't think it's as much simplification as it is more tightly tying
>> into the native DOM and rendering facilities of the browser.
>>
>> I see this node set as taking the "Make everything as simple as possible,
>> but not simpler" approach to a 3D declarative form.
>>
>> -----
>> ~Chris
>> cmarrin@apple.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> You are currently subscribe to public_webgl@khronos.org.
>> To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo@khronos.org with
>> the following command in the body of your email:
>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> You are currently subscribe to public_webgl@khronos.org.
>> To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo@khronos.org with
>> the following command in the body of your email:
>>
>>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> You are currently subscribe to public_webgl@khronos.org.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo@khronos.org with
> the following command in the body of your email:
>
>

-----------------------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribe to public_webgl@khronos.org.
To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo@khronos.org with
the following command in the body of your email: