3 ms·

I wouldn't call "display a chair in a web page in an inexact and implementation-defined manner, with air quotes 'interactivity'" a "very basic need". This seem

• southerntofu 5y ago
  Sorry "basic needs" refered to "basic needs" in terms of 3D rendering. It was an answer to people elsewhere in the thread complaining that this new element would not support lighting and other sophisticated 3D rendering features. I agree that 3D/VR is definitely not a basic need for the web and i personally don't want/intend to use it. That being said, if there is an established 3D model standard, i think it's better overall if the browser implements it properly, rather than having two dozen half-baked JS implementations eating all your CPU/RAM just to display a tiny square. Just like technically you can parse an MP4 video frame by frame using JS to display each frame in a canvas, doesn't mean you should. <video> element is much better suited to that, and if that element had not been standardized, we would arguably have to choose between "Youtube browser" and Flash player fallback, which is arguably worse for everyone involved. PS: Also as other have pointed out in the thread 3D on the web is over two decades old yet has never been standardized. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML