4 ms·
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 d
by 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 agoVs 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 agoIs 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.