Universal3D vs. Real Open Standards

Posted by timothy on Saturday August 28, 2004 @08:57AM from the trapdoors-can-be-open-too dept.

viveka writes "Back in April, Slashdot reported the announcement of a Universal 3D File Format by Intel, Microsoft & others - to be "as open as MP3". Of course, that's not all that open. And this turns out to be the sneaky part. There is a real open standard already - X3D is ISO-ratified, royalty-free, and has multiple open source implementations. U3D is "going to be submitted to ISO" - one day - but right now they're talking to ECMA, which allows royalty-bearing patents. I found this article by Tony Parisi, co-chair of the X3D Working Group a fascinating insider's picture of the standards wars, along with insights into what it takes to release an online game, what really killed VRML, and why open standards do (and don't) matter. I mean, a royalty-bearing, pseudo-open universal 3D format from Intel and Microsoft? Sorry, guys. That trick doesn't work anymore ;)"

2 of 174 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

MP3 an Open Standard? I tthink not by MJOverkill · 2004-08-28 09:13 · Score: 5, Informative

Remember, the MP3 standard is covered by patents owned by the Fraunhofer Institute and THOMSON, and they enforce their patents.
Re:Storing 3D vector data in a text file is braind by hopethishelps · 2004-08-28 09:27 · Score: 5, Informative

Binary storage for 3D data makes a lot more sense since it is more compact and easier to parse
A binary format for X3D is being defined. X3D supports multiple file encodings describing the same abstract model.
But nowadays everything has got to be XML, even if it does not make any sense at all
The XML encoding enables smooth integration with web services and cross-platform inter-application file and data transfer. An excellent idea, surely. See the X3D FAQ for more details.