- From: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:56:05 -0800
- To: Gregg Tavares <gman@google.com> (wrk)
- Cc: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Nov 11, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Gregg Tavares (wrk) wrote: > I also want to add that I think CSS shaders in particular are going to end up getting extremely complicated. > > Given that the author can't supply an arbitrary mesh nor can they supply arbitrary textures it seems likely they'll end up doing crazy complicated things in the shaders to work around those limitations. Well, given the alternative crazy complicated things they'd have to do to get some effects without shaders, I think the situation is pretty good. > > As an example I certainly never would have made a folding map using a shader like the one Adobe showed. I would have (a) cut the paper into 1 plane per fold and set texcoords appropriately OR (b) used a skinned model and hierarchical animation OR (c) used morph targets across 2 meshes. It's neat that it can be done in a shader but that's just my point, given the limitations people will need to put more in shaders then they generally have in the past. I think adding any more flexibility to the current mesh design would make it too complicated. As Adobe has shown, you can do some very cool things with the current meshes. As always authors will be limited by the tools at their disposal. But I think the current CSS shader model is a pretty big step forward. One day we'll probably have a more flexible 3D model available (assuming we can solve the security issues). But I think what we have is a huge step in that direction. ----- ~Chris cmarrin@apple.com
Received on Friday, 11 November 2011 22:56:34 UTC