- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 00:44:15 +0000 (UTC)
On Sun, 5 Jun 2005, Matthew Raymond wrote: > > > > 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. We can put something in our "rendering" section (not yet existant) that gives recommended behaviour for X3D-in-CSS until the X3D and CSS groups get around to doing so themselves, sure. But personally I would have no idea how to do so, so someone is going to have to write draft text. :-) > The <div> element is not the right element for what? Well, the <div> element is meaningless, so it isn't the right element for anything, unless it has some sort of semantics hung off the side of it (e.g. if it has the title="" attribute or the lang="" attribute or some such). > > > 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. Yeah; just making sure I send replies to all suggestions, since the charter basically requires me to do so. No offense meant. :-) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 5 June 2005 17:44:15 UTC