4 ms·

I think apple should just fix their webgl implementation. They seem to be missing a fundamental feature of the web it's interactive. They have an interactive a

I think apple should just fix their webgl implementation. They seem to be missing a fundamental feature of the web it's interactive. They have an interactive attribute for the tag but no description of what this means? What does it mean to interact with a 3d model? Can 3d model interaction be accurately defined in a single attribute? Why not just use javascript for that logic? The whole point of having multi media like a 3d model on a website is so people can interact with it. If the interaction is as simple as spin the model there are three.js and a million other javascript libraries that can do that in a few lines of code. Another fundamental the proposal doesn't address is the model format? As far as I know all model file formats are proprietary OBJ is probably the closest to an open standard and its anything but standard. Another issue that javascript easily solves. A fake problem their solution found is DRM, obviously the DRM could be removed as easy as HLS encryption (Super easy, did it yesterday). The main problem here is again the file format, no one would share their 3dmax file because its fucking huge they would export a low poly model for web that would be useless to anyone wanting to steal your model.

tehbeard 5y ago
> I think apple should just fix their webgl implementation. They can't even make a key-value storage that doesn't break every other release, you expect them to get something involving complex math to work?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
soylentgraham 5y ago
Its a few lines of code... for a coder, and even then, its 100 lines of setup, shaders, model loading. Vs a single tag to embed a model. For a non-coder. You dont have to know how to encode/decode videos to add video to a page. Im surprised it's taken this long. (Whether it'll turn out good, not sure, but it will definitely be adopted, and fast)
- onion2k 5y ago
  Vs a single tag to embed a model. 3D models are complicated. If the <model> element is complex enough to support anything the user decides to embed then it'll put a huge burden on browser developers. That's fine for Apple and Google, but it'd be another nail in Firefox's coffin. On the other hand, if the element only supports (say) the gltf spec then it won't be a simple case of adding a model for a non-technical user. They'd need to export or convert their model, textures, shaders, animations, etc. 3D support is probably an order of magnitude harder than video. And video is hard enough.
- 8note 5y ago
  Is it actually that easy though? Or is all that setup actually useful? If it's not needed, why do the setup in the webGL API?
- dangerface 5y ago
  > You dont have to know how to encode/decode videos to add video to a page Sure a non-coder could put an avi file in an html5 video tag but it won't work. They will need to hire a coder to write code for their site that encodes the video to x264 hosts it on a CDN and then embed that in the site with the video tag.
TazeTSchnitzel 5y ago
> I think apple should just fix their webgl implementation. Safari is supporting WebGL 2 soon; it's already in preview. > Another fundamental the proposal doesn't address is the model format? It would probably be glTF.

tehbeard 5y ago

> I think apple should just fix their webgl implementation. They can't even make a key-value storage that doesn't break every other release, you expect them to get something involving complex math to work?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

soylentgraham 5y ago

Its a few lines of code... for a coder, and even then, its 100 lines of setup, shaders, model loading. Vs a single tag to embed a model. For a non-coder. You dont have to know how to encode/decode videos to add video to a page. Im surprised it's taken this long. (Whether it'll turn out good, not sure, but it will definitely be adopted, and fast)

onion2k 5y ago
Vs a single tag to embed a model. 3D models are complicated. If the <model> element is complex enough to support anything the user decides to embed then it'll put a huge burden on browser developers. That's fine for Apple and Google, but it'd be another nail in Firefox's coffin. On the other hand, if the element only supports (say) the gltf spec then it won't be a simple case of adding a model for a non-technical user. They'd need to export or convert their model, textures, shaders, animations, etc. 3D support is probably an order of magnitude harder than video. And video is hard enough.
8note 5y ago
Is it actually that easy though? Or is all that setup actually useful? If it's not needed, why do the setup in the webGL API?
dangerface 5y ago
> You dont have to know how to encode/decode videos to add video to a page Sure a non-coder could put an avi file in an html5 video tag but it won't work. They will need to hire a coder to write code for their site that encodes the video to x264 hosts it on a CDN and then embed that in the site with the video tag.

TazeTSchnitzel 5y ago

> I think apple should just fix their webgl implementation. Safari is supporting WebGL 2 soon; it's already in preview. > Another fundamental the proposal doesn't address is the model format? It would probably be glTF.