W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2009

[whatwg] <model/>: A 3D Equivalent to <img/>

From: CYp <tccyp86@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:54:29 +0800
Message-ID: <BAY118-W39D211EF9A33AD0B1F6448BCB20@phx.gbl>

* 2D bitmaps are only partially compatible with 3D CSS - they are still always flat>>3D object  will finally be present as a 2d bitmap. there are always a process called rendering.>>you idea may be similar with the VRML, such as Box(x,y,z,w,l,h) but VRML still need some ActiveX to render it into bitmap.* This includes <canvas/>, which is still a 2D bitmap, not actually a 3D object>> people now are working on the  CanvasRenderingContext3D,but rendering efficiency is a big problem I think.
From: anewpage.media@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:16:37 -0500
To: workmad3 at gmail.com
CC: whatwg at lists.whatwg.org
Subject: Re: [whatwg] <model/>: A 3D Equivalent to <img/>


Excellent perspectives, and there are certainly format decisions that have to be made as a matter of course, just as there have been for <video/>.

I do not agree with two of your points:

* A static 3D rendering is equal to a 2D bitmap 

* JavaScript is necessary to display 3D content

My brief counter-points:

* 2D bitmaps are only partially compatible with 3D CSS - they are still always flat* This includes <canvas/>, which is still a 2D bitmap, not actually a 3D object

A JavaScript-Only Approach is Inferior Because:

* <canvas/> is being purposed as a viewport into 3D content, a function the browser itself should serve
* 3D HTML/CSS is more facilitative to 3D design work than 3D JavaScript alone

* Using only 3D JavaScript, the code required in order to serve rich user interfaces is bandwidth intensive, working against one of the key benefits of using web standards

Explanation and Supporting Examples


These assumptions are partially the fault of my primordial example, as that example's purpose was to illustrate these concepts clearly, not demonstrate an application of the technology.  The goal of <model/> is not merely to serve 3D content, but to allow designers and developers to *lay out web content and applications in 3D*.  Let's think of this concept as "3D HTML".

<canvas/> is not a solution.  It is rendering 3D content inside a
viewport, when the browser itself should be a viewport to 3D content.  One alternative, creating a giant <canvas/> and filling it with fallback content, is coding twice - not good.

The foundations of 3D CSS (a la Webkit - http://webkit.org/blog/386/3d-transforms/) and 3D JavaScript (WebGL/O3D) are being laid out, but there is no HTML equivalent to cement a truly 3D design platform on the web.

If we draw 3D design to its logical conclusion, rich user interfaces, then the usefulness and necessity of 3D HTML becomes more apparent.  I will support this statement with an advanced example, which will demonstrate the inadequacies of 2D design, and the gaps in currently-existing potential standards. 


The below snippets will illustrate how a page would lay out such an interface in three ways:  1) A 2D implementation you will see today; 2) a combination of fictional 3D HTML and 3D CSS; 3) only 3D CSS, 3D JavaScript and <canvas/>.

On hover, each planet will rotate about its own axis.



ul {
    * Background image of space
li {
    * Absolutely positioned to correlate perspective

a {
    * Block
    * Negative indentation, hiding text
a.(planet name) {
    * Background image of each planet
    * Height/Width of each background image (alternatively a large height/width in the anchor definition above, centering each image on X,Y axes)



<h1>The Solar System in 3/4</h1>
        <a class="sun" href="sun.html">The Sun</a>

        <a class="mercury" href="mercury.html">Mercury</a>
        <a class="venus" href="venus.html">Venus</a>


    * Slideshow background script attached to each anchor, listening for mouseover and mouseout

3D HTML & CSS (notes in parentheses)



div {
    * Background image of space
ul {
    * Rotate to 3/4 view (We can no longer display a background on this element, because it will become wafer-like when rotated; a <model/> will maintain its desired shape, as it is really 3D.)

model {
    (some of the work will already be done for you by the ul rotation)
    * Rotate to proper perspective
    * Translate to desired depth/position

    (in the syntax of -webkit-transition and -webkit-rotate, currently in use today)

    * transition: rotate 3s ease-out; 
model:hover {
    * rotateY(360deg);


<h1>The Solar System in 3/4<h1>

            <a href="sun.html">
                <model src="sun.xml" alt="The Sun" />
            <a href="mercury.html">

                <model src="mercury.xml" alt="Mercury" />
            <a href="venus.html">
                <model src="venus.xml" alt="Venus" />




canvas {
    * Height/Width of viewport


<h1>The Solar System in 3/4</h1>
<canvas id="solar-system">

    (Herein: Code from Example 1)

    (the following is a non-custom snippet from O3D's "simple" example -- webGL's implementation is slightly cleaner)

function loadFile(context, path) {
  function callback(pack, parent, exception) {
    if (exception) {
      alert("Could not load: " + path + "\n" + exception);

      g_loadingElement.innerHTML = "loading failed.";

    } else {
      g_loadingElement.innerHTML = "loading finished.";
      // Generate draw elements and setup material draw lists.
      o3djs.pack.preparePack(pack, g_viewInfo);
      var bbox = o3djs.util.getBoundingBoxOfTree(g_client.root);

      g_camera.target = g_math.lerpVector(bbox.minExtent, bbox.maxExtent, 0.5);
      var diag = g_math.length(g_math.subVector(bbox.maxExtent,
      g_camera.eye = g_math.addVector(g_camera.target, [0, 0, 1.5 * diag]);

      g_camera.nearPlane = diag / 1000;
      g_camera.farPlane = diag * 10;

      // Manually connect all the materials' lightWorldPos params to the context

      var materials = pack.getObjectsByClassName('o3d.Material');
      for (var m = 0; m < materials.length; ++m) {
        var material = materials[m];
        var param = material.getParam('lightWorldPos');

        if (param) {

      g_finished = true;  // for selenium

      // Comment out the next line to dump lots of info.
      if (false) {

        o3djs.dump.dump('---dumping context---\n');

        o3djs.dump.dump('---dumping root---\n');

        o3djs.dump.dump('---dumping render root---\n');

        o3djs.dump.dump('---dump g_pack shapes---\n');
        var shapes = pack.getObjectsByClassName('o3d.Shape');

        for (var t = 0; t < shapes.length; t++) {

        o3djs.dump.dump('---dump g_pack materials---\n');
        var materials = pack.getObjectsByClassName('o3d.Material');

        for (var t = 0; t < materials.length; t++) {
          o3djs.dump.dump (
              '  ' + t + ' : ' + materials[t].className +
              ' : "' + materials[t].name + '"\n');

          o3djs.dump.dumpParams(materials[t], '    ');

        o3djs.dump.dump('---dump g_pack textures---\n');
        var textures = pack.getObjectsByClassName('o3d.Texture');

        for (var t = 0; t < textures.length; t++) {

        o3djs.dump.dump('---dump g_pack effects---\n');
        var effects = pack.getObjectsByClassName('o3d.Effect');

        for (var t = 0; t < effects.length; t++) {
          o3djs.dump.dump ('  ' + t + ' : ' + effects[t].className +
                  ' : "' + effects[t].name + '"\n');

          o3djs.dump.dumpParams(effects[t], '    ');

    (and on, literally, for pages)

While the paradigms of HTML are inherently dimensionless, media types are not.  CSS and JavaScript are embracing 3D in their own ways, HTML is obviously not giving its due diligence.  Tons of JS just to open a 3D viewport in HTML is far from what I would consider a complete spec.  The wafer-boxes that 3D CSS produce are an ill of HTML, not of CSS.

-Brian MB

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:46 AM, David Workman <workmad3 at gmail.com> wrote:

I'm in perfect agreement regarding the rational behind having a model tag as I agree with having more semantic tags in HTML. However, I don't think a model tag would work as described as it would provide no real extra benefits and would just confuse document authors.

The reason I feel this is basically down to the fact that 3d models don't have a visual representation in the same way that images do. A 3d model file is just a list of data that needs rendering into a 2d image for display. There isn't really a standardised way to do this (not in the same way as with images, with standardised png, jpg, bmp, etc. as well known and commonplace formats with commonplace methods of display), and on top of that it isn't a 3d model you a displaying, but a 2d representation (i.e. an <img>). If the representation is static, it isn't really a 3d model as it's just a 2d image, and if it isn't static then you need scripting support, drawing support, rendering and the whole host of items that require javascript hooks and would logically make such a model more suited to a 3d canvas (which I believe is to be supported eventually under a normal <canvas> tag). As such, I don't see a place for a <model> tag in the current environment as a merely semantic element, and adding more than just seantics to the tag would be overlapping it with other efforts.

David W.

?? Windows 7???????? PC??????
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20091103/2380e2d9/attachment-0001.htm>
Received on Monday, 2 November 2009 18:54:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:18 UTC