[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: XML multimedia specs -- help for the bewildered, please?
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Chuck White <email@example.com>, Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com,firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 13:00:17 -0500
It's simple: comply and compete. XML has nothing
in the way of semantics, real time 3D interoperability
depends on semantics for behavioral fidelity. A single
source codebase is the sword cut to the Gordian Knot
of interoperation and behavioral fidelity. Vendors such as
Macromedia recognize the conflict for what it is.
The X3D effort is being revamped. XML is still there
as an encoding, but the emphasis appears to be changing.
To what is somewhat undetermined. A closed Browser
Working Group has been announced with details on the
W3DC homepage. There was heavy resistance to changing
the syntax of VRML (what X3D is basically) and more to
the idea of using the DOM. This has to be overcome
with reliable conformant performant implementation.
So far, no one has stepped up to that except the
XML doesn't add much to the issues
of ubiquitous real time 3D at the browser level.
On the front end (transformation of data sets
for visualization and high level authoring
languages) it can be very useful, but at this time
3D is mired in the interoperation, fidelity, and
ubiquity of rendering plugins.
Note: Microsoft has yet to field a successful
real time 3D application. It seems to be a
dead spot in their pool of otherwise enormously
successful applications. My guess is that they
may acquire rights to one of the VRML survivors.
Their own Chrome effort which was the incindiary
that illuminated XML in the 3D universe died a
quiet ignominous death. Someone ask why.
Other issues: why 3D at all?
Without very good authoring tools, real time 3D is
very costly to build and worse to maintain in the
face of inconsistent browser behavior. Complex
content such as demonstrated by the IrishSpace
project isn't viable until those challenges are
met and overcome. If all you need are rotating
objects, you don't really need real time 3D. If
you want to build large integrated worlds, say
compelling entertainment applications, real time
3D is a good bet. The authoring tools must enable
easy production and intergration of 3D audio,
avatar behaviors, movie or storystyle framework
scripting, and over time, should incorporate the
voice technologies being pioneered at AT&T to enable
reuse of live and deceased actors voices.
Then you need a much larger and more productive
talent pool. 3D is hard. Weirdly, it is easier
than 2D but no one notices.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Chuck White [mailto:email@example.com]
As for 3D, currently, there are two areas of activity that I'm aware of (but
there may be more): the X3D spec you mentioned and a 3D language being
pushed by Viewpoint and Adobe
(http://www.viewpoint.com/developerzone/5-0.html). Naturally, these groups
don't seem to be working together, but I could be mistaken.
I don't know if this helps at all, or if this just served as an opportunity
to voice my displeasure over the way companies handle spec development. If
it's the latter, my apologies, but these things need to be said from time to