- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 20:55:29 -0400
James Graham wrote:
> Matthew Raymond wrote:
>> If this is acceptable, does this negate the value of a potential
>>"3d" context for <canvas> in XHTML?
>
> Presumably X3D:3D canvas is equivalent to SVG:2D canvas.
Took me a moment to get this, for some reason. You're saying that
X3D is to a <canvas> with a "3d" context as SVG is a <canvas> with a
"2d" context. Yeah, that's pretty much the idea.
Right now, I'm leaning towards the idea of X3D being used for
general purpose 3D support in XHTML, with a low-level "3d" context for
<canvas> (probably a wrapper for OpenGL|ES, except less API specific). I
don't see a high-level "3d" being useful in XHTML, since X3D is already
defined and has code to support it. X3D integration into a browser would
take less time than specifying and coding a totally new API from scratch.
This leaves us in limbo for HTML, though. I suppose the best
solution would be that every browser that supports X3D, either natively
or by plug-in, should support the following markup:
| <object data="TheEarth.x3d" type="model/x3d+xml">
| <img src="TheEarth.gif" alt="A picture of the planet Earth">
| </object>
We could also define a standard interface for accessing the external
object's DOM (if that hasn't been done already). Being able to
manipulate the DOM for an X3D file in HTML would be the next best thing
to compound XHTML/X3D documents.
Your thoughts?
Received on Friday, 3 June 2005 17:55:29 UTC