- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 00:48:46 -0400
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Matthew Raymond wrote: >>Given this "new" information, I would like to know of the following is >>an acceptable use of X3D within an XHTML document: >> >>| <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> >>| <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" >>| "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> >>| <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" >>| xmlns:x3d="http://www.web3d.org/specifications/x3d-3.0.xsd"> >>| <head> >>| <title>3D Model</title> >>| <style type="text/css"> >>| x3d:X3D { >>| width: 100px; >>| height: 100px; >>| } >>| </style> >>| </head> >>| <body> >>| <h1>A 3D Cylinder Model</h1> >>| <div> >>| <x3d:X3D profile="MPEG-4 Interactive"> >>| <x3d:Scene> >>| <x3d:Shape> >>| <x3d:Appearance> >>| <x3d:Material diffuseColor="0.0 0.5 1.0"/> >>| </x3d:Appearance> >>| <x3d:Cylinder/> >>| </x3d:Shape> >>| </x3d:Scene> >>| </x3d:X3D> >>| </div> >>| </body> >>| </html> > > I guess so. Some spec somewhere will probably need to state that an <X3D> > element introduces a rectangular surface and then should describe how to > determine its 2D intrinsic dimensions and/or intrinsic aspect ratio. My concern is that the various working groups (Web3D, WHATWG, et cetera) will play pass the buck on this issue. Can we create a generic spec for displaying 3D information in a 2D window? We could allow the X3D spec or other specs to override if they needed to. > The next step, I guess, is to see if any Web browser vendors want to > implement X3D! Is the X3D spec stable? > > (Note that in the above the selector is wrong and the <div> is probably > not the right element, but that's another story.) Oops! | x3d|X3D { | width: 100px; | height: 100px; | } The <div> element is not the right element for what? I'm not even >>If this is acceptable, does this negate the value of a potential "3d" >>context for <canvas> in XHTML? > > No, there are needs for both declarative 3D and for direct-mode 3D. I've already come to that conclusion elsewhere in this thread.
Received on Saturday, 4 June 2005 21:48:46 UTC