Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Khronos Launches Initiative For Standards-Based 3-D Web Content

Posted by timothy on from the from-the-people-who-brought-you-open-gl dept.

xororand writes "The initiative called 'Accelerated 3D on the web' has been formed by the Khronos consortium with the goal to define an open standard for 3D content on the web, using OpenGL and ECMAscript, as it was suggested by Mozilla developers. 'The Khronos(TM) Group today announced an initiative to create an open, royalty-free standard for bringing accelerated 3D graphics to the Web. In response to a proposal from Mozilla, Khronos has created an "Accelerated 3D on Web" working group that Mozilla has offered to chair. This royalty-free standard will be developed under the proven Khronos development process with a target of a first public release within 12 months.' Unlike previous attempts to establish 3D standards for the web, this one might be actually successful due to the use of existing open standards, and the increasing performance of ECMAscript engines."

117 comments

  1. This is awesome! by rackserverdeals · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've been trying to figure out how to get web pages to load slower. There are only so many things you can add to a page before you run out of ideas, and as cool as it is, the falling snow effect looks stupid 3 out of 12 months a year.

    Yeah I know it has real potential for some serious implementations, but we all know that you're just going to have 3d rotating logs, 3d menus and other such junk more than anything else.

    --
    Dual Opteron < $600
    1. Re:This is awesome! by BESTouff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can laugh at this, but I'm eagerly awaiting the day were all those flash-based games are replaced by javascript games using that 3D canvas.
      Imagine that ! No silly and unsecure plugin to download, a truely open standard available on smartphones as well as desktops, and fully integrated with the DOM content (i.e. can interect with the rest of the web page, unlike flash which is restrained to its sandbox).

      This is awesome, you're right.

    2. Re:This is awesome! by rackserverdeals · · Score: 1

      I'm not laughing at it. I'm cringing at the almost certain misuse.

      --
      Dual Opteron < $600
    3. Re:This is awesome! by 0racle · · Score: 2, Informative

      Keep thinking because 3d in the browser was already done.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    4. Re:This is awesome! by sixoh1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cinge? No flinch when that stupid monkey from the banner add starts throwing virtual 3D poop at you.

      Does anything really think that if every browser out there had this capability the advertisers wont stuff this into their adds like popups are used now?

    5. Re:This is awesome! by wild_berry · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Now that your cellphone has a 3D acceleration chip in it (and can run Quake 3), the use of a 3D interface to the Web is... still stupid.

    6. Re:This is awesome! by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      AFAIK no Browser supports VRML, you need a plugin.

      That's possibly the reason no-one supports it, you might as well write your 3d graphics in silverlight to get a better userbase.

      Hopefully, this will get an implementation embedded in Firefox and Chrome and then we'll see widespread adoption - especially if Google makes its apps 3d.

    7. Re:This is awesome! by FlyingBishop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And we'll be able to block it faster than you can say 'flashblock.'

      Actually, I expect this will be something you have to enable from the get-go. OpenGL in emulation could bog down even a top of the line computer if advertisers do any sort of misuse.

      I originally installed Flashblock on my older single-core 2.8ghz celeron because having a modest number of tabs (~8) with flash ads going would cause my CPU usage to hit 80%. That's enough to keep the fan spinning pretty high.

      I suspect any use of OpenGL would cause similar concerns from the get go.

    8. Re:This is awesome! by palegray.net · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm thinking more about the legitimate uses of this tech; real-time 3D data visualization and such. It's crappy to have to load a desktop app to do anything in this department, especially relatively simple stuff. With a ton of intranet apps being developed to run in the browser, why not add this capability?

      --
      512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
    9. Re:This is awesome! by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 1

      If you build it, they will come. I share the same frustration with computers too. I get what I'm thinking is a great computer (hardware wise) and then the OS comes so overbloated to render it equally as fast my 486SX computer running Windows 95. Thanks. For once can we evolve to makes things faster, not use all available resources that make inevitably slower.

      --
      We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
    10. Re:This is awesome! by sixoh1 · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt that Microsoft will put that into the default configuration of IE11 or whatever version this function gets delivered in, it would reduce their ability to sell coding toolkits for the 3D function to the market.

      No, whenever this is seen as a 'good' thing by the big browsers (IE, Safari, FF) the default will be to allow this junk, and most of the 'normal' people who use the inter-tubes dont know how to download a FireFox extension, much less probe the depths of Internet explorer's preferences panel to find the right knob.

      As responsible web jockeys the SlashDot crowd should probably strongly discourage this development, although we will likely be outflanked by the zeal of advertisers to monetize the intar-web.

    11. Re:This is awesome! by kripkenstein · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With a ton of intranet apps being developed to run in the browser, why not add this capability?

      Well, in a slight change of topic, one issue with adding this capability is security.

      It seems this is basically a thin wrapper around OpenGL (ES). That means we'd be giving arbitrary code in web pages basically direct access to OpenGL drivers, which opens up an entire new world of potential exploits: OpenGL drivers are big and complicated, and have never really been put in such a position (typical OpenGL apps are programs you download and run, which anyhow already have access to your computer).

    12. Re:This is awesome! by salarelv · · Score: 2, Informative

      VRML is dead language but there is also a newer one - 3DMLW. Its open source and there seems to be active development on a newer version.

    13. Re:This is awesome! by PingSpike · · Score: 1

      Get ready to download 65mb of textures before you can click "Download" on a 3D toolbar to start the search for your video card driver! The future is now! If you're lucky your browser won't crash halfway though.

    14. Re:This is awesome! by mad.frog · · Score: 1

      > No silly and unsecure plugin to download

      "silly" is a judgement call, but "unsecure" is a claim that can be backed with evidence (or not).

      so why don't you point us to all the security flaws in Flash that have been exploited in meaningful ways.

      go ahead... we'll wait.

      (...crickets chirping...)

    15. Re:This is awesome! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      You simply aren't creative enough.

      In the spring and summer, just change them to "rising flowers". In autumn, to blown leaves.

      Oh, and for slowing down pages, just create an infinite stream of plug-ins with giant dimensions. Something like this: applet, flash, image, applet, flash, image, applet, flash, image, etc.
      With 16k * 16k pixels size each.

      Of course my elinks still would kick that site's ass, so be sure to add at least a terabyte of pure-text-compatible styled HTML entities and content late in the page that requests re-layouting.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  2. plugins by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Erm shouldn't fancy stuff like 3d acceleration be handled by plug-ins not browsers? I don't even think putting ogg in the browser was a good idea!

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    1. Re:plugins by TinBromide · · Score: 1

      I think that the reason why firefox takes more resources to run than early 90's operating systems might be evidence of the fact that having the browser do all might not be the best. (And my early 90's os was perfectly capable of browsing the internet via an early 90's browser, all for less resources than firefox is taking up right now.)

      --
      Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
    2. Re:plugins by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Erm shouldn't fancy stuff like 3d acceleration be handled by plug-ins not browsers? I don't even think putting ogg in the browser was a good idea!

      Creating something as a Web standard does not mean browser makers have to incorporate it as part of the core browser. If you want a stripped down browser that needs a plug-in to implement more resource intensive Web standards, nobody is stopping you.

    3. Re:plugins by sixoh1 · · Score: 1

      Havent you heard? The Browser is the OS now. This way the large vertically integrated software companies can deliver their entire panoply of junk software to us through the browser and we get to pay a monthly priviledge^H^H^H^H subscription for access.

      Not sure how bad this is for the OSS movement however, creating the ever more complex rich user-interface environments is not the stuff of one guy in his mother's closet writing code - it takes real artists, human-interface studies, and more, to make the stuff work and not look either amateurish (and loose user base) or impossible to use (and lose user base).

    4. Re:plugins by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Erm shouldn't fancy stuff like 3d acceleration be handled by plug-ins not browsers?

      Uh, why? Just because?

      I mean, the browser already does accelerated 2D rendering in the form of CSS-decorated HTML. And SVG+Javascript covers quite a bit of the Flash playbook. So why not go all the way and give it the capability to do generalized, accelerated 2D and 3D rendering? We've already got the shitpile that is Flash... at least by embedding this capability in the browser itself, you get a standard implementation across browsers and platforms. And as a bonus, various elements can interact, unlike, say, Flash which is sandboxed away (I can't even copy a frickin' link out of a Flash "application" easily).

    5. Re:plugins by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      I think that the reason why firefox takes more resources to run than early 90's operating systems might be evidence of the fact that having the browser do all might not be the best.

      Funny. I'd rather have Firefox implement a Flash-like subsystem, which could reuse its existing scripting and rendering framework, than have something like Flash which has to essentially build that entire framework from the ground up... poorly.

      Or: Firefox + 2D/3D rendering can't *possibly* be any worse than the shitpile that is Firefox + Flash.

    6. Re:plugins by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Erm shouldn't fancy stuff like 3d acceleration be handled by plug-ins not browsers?

      3D acceleration can be handled anywhere; what I don't see is why a "web standard" is needed for it. You need a web standard for description and behavior of particular content (e.g., things like HTML, or more relevant to 3D content, VRML or X3D), acceleration shouldn't need to be part of the standard at all, it should be part of the implementation tailored to the hardware and software (OS, etc.) environment of the implementation. You might have a standard API for 3D acceleration (OpenGL for instance), and certainly, because you are dealing with closely related content, the object model for a web standard might be similar to parts of the object model around which an acceleration API is based, but still ought to be separate standards, and if you bind them too tightly you are going to mix concerns that don't belong together.

    7. Re:plugins by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Erm shouldn't fancy stuff like 3d acceleration be handled by plug-ins not browsers? I don't even think putting ogg in the browser was a good idea!

      Why not put it in both? I mean, you should not put all your oggs in one basket.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    8. Re:plugins by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I'd settle for being able to tell the browser to tell Flash to stop using 100% CPU.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    9. Re:plugins by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > So why not go all the way and give it the capability to do generalized, accelerated 2D and 3D rendering?

      Because it would be easier for a 3D app vendor to wrap a browser around their 3D engine than the other way around. Much like how Intel got scared as 3D cards rocketed by their processors in capacitor density and so on, such that a Pentium core became something they might one day just tuck into the corner of their chips.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    10. Re:plugins by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2

      Because it would be easier for a 3D app vendor to wrap a browser around their 3D engine than the other way around.

      Umm... and that solves the same problem, how, exactly? The whole point, here, is that there are a class of web applications that could really use 3D rendering, but don't have access to the necessary APIs. So you're going to have to expose some kind of API to the Javascript universe, and if you're doing that, you're most of the way to putting a 3D engine (and I use the term "engine" loosely... it's really just providing an OpenGL-like API in the Javascript world) in the browser itself.

      If I'm understanding you correctly, what you're describing is the precise inverse: making it possible for a 3D application to render web content within it. That's not even remotely the same thing.

    11. Re:plugins by ppierre · · Score: 1

      And adding a nice text-effect with a shader ?
      Better do it with Flash ?

      It isn't about 3D content. 3D acceleration can give some mice graphics without locking content in a plug-ins or an image.
      WEB-Designer won't learn Open-GL. But they would use JQuery-3D.

    12. Re:plugins by ChuckDriver · · Score: 1

      To think, a mere 7 years ago phoenix was supposed to be the lightweight browser for the future.

    13. Re:plugins by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      I didn't think anything outside text should be used. Lynx for the win.

      Seriously the line on what formats are natively supported will keep shifting. First gif/jpeg then png without plugins. Then theres SVG (do you need a plugin?) etc . As for a moving pictures format, once images were added I found it strange that a movie codec wasn't.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    14. Re:plugins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say it "shouldn't" be put into the browser itself - do you have any arguments to back up that position?

      The same goes for "I don't think". It's great that you have an opinion, but that's not enough.

      *I* think that every day should be International Bacon Day and that I should be named supreme ruler of the Earth. Now you must support me because I asserted an opinion!

    15. Re:plugins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very nice.

      (golf clap)

  3. Cool by cromar · · Score: 1

    While that's true, I think we can expect most of the good websites to limit the use of 3D on crap... most good sites are pretty responsible with that kind of thing. Now the sites our friends and family might go to... oh my god, I don't even want to think of this combined with 3rd party Facebook apps!

    Anyway, this could be really nice in AJAX-type apps... I'm thinking of things like iTunes album view, visualizers(?), touch screen stuff, interesting GUIs for Flickr-type apps... there are a lot of good applications for 3D on the web.

    1. Re:Cool by zobier · · Score: 1

      This is hinted at in the HTML5 spec. Vladimir Vukicevic has already created a 3D Firefox Add-on that extends <canvas> with an OpenGL ES context; and others are working on a javascript library that aims to make make Canvas 3D development easier.

      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
  4. But of course! by Adilor · · Score: 1

    Yeah, because standardizing web content has worked so very well thus far. This should take right off and just roll. No problems whatsoever. Yep.

    1. Re:But of course! by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, because standardizing web content has worked so very well thus far. This should take right off and just roll. No problems whatsoever. Yep.

      Obviously there has been one particular company working hard to hold back Web standards. That said, between legal scrutiny of those actions and the slow erosion of their Web install share to both alternative browsers and alternative platforms (e.g. smartphones) standards are becoming both more important and more applied.

    2. Re:But of course! by Adilor · · Score: 1

      Indeed, indeed. There is a certain amount of necessity to it. Personally, I'm all for standardization as far as web content goes. It really would stand to benefit the masses.

      One of the big problems, though, is getting said masses to go along with it. There're a certain number of individuals out there that just don't want to play nice. They want to do things their way, regardless of what "standards" the majorities want to enforce. The internet's a big place, and it's tough to get everyone in it to follow the rules.

    3. Re:But of course! by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      The internet's a big place, and it's tough to get everyone in it to follow the rules.

      Not really. Any of them that don't have overwhelming market share in a pertinent market are kept in line by the market, as in they lose money and install base when they break compatibility. All that really needs to be done is enforce current antitrust laws against any player who tries leveraging dominance in another market to undermine this process.

  5. VRML For the Win! by vjmurphy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Man, I miss people asking for VRML galleries and stores. The same way I miss getting kicked in the head repeatedly.

    --
    Vincent J. Murphy
    Spandex Justice
  6. On the other hand... by cromar · · Score: 1

    I'd hate to imagine what the web would be like without there having been some effort at standardization. Blech.

    1. Re:On the other hand... by Adilor · · Score: 1

      True that. I guess it can't be discounted completely even given past failures/shortcomings. It's at least an interesting idea. Who knows, maybe if it gets some proper support behind it, it might actually go somewhere.

  7. Just what we need by sixoh1 · · Score: 1

    Even more bandwidth draining marketing weenie tools to make websites 'interactive'! Eleventy!

    I'm highly confident that soon we will see a proliferation of meaningless uses of this technology to further anger the denizens of FaceBook (you broke my homepage) and turn every formerly useful information site into an impossible to navigate hash.

    Clean web page design with usability studies and simplistic HTML+CSS works very well, just like what you're looking at here on Slashdot - do you really think that the only way to make Slashdot better would be to make articles "jump up" on mouseover like some insane 1950s B-grade 3-D movie extravaganza?

  8. I See A Vision, A Vision of ... ActiveX by cmholm · · Score: 1

    I think it's useful to develop an open web 3d standard, despite the dancing GIF animations it brings to mind. What I foresee is either MS or MS sock puppet(s) getting a seat at the table. Suddenly, "Open" ActiveX is the solution.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
    1. Re:I See A Vision, A Vision of ... ActiveX by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure it'll give rise to "dancing gif" syndrome, but more a replacement for SVG. Then we get better graphics than downloaded compressed bitmaps, and the possibility of doing a lot more in the browser. That's especially important as the browser moves towards being the desktop.

      Unfortunately, I see MS getting in there too, even if they're not interested in the technology - its a standard that isn't directX, oh noes - and just want to strangle it or implement their own 'mostly' compatible version with some extensions. (ok, I might be being too harsh on the new Microsoft here as they do seem to be embracing standards as it suits them currently) But, if that can be resisted and it takes off.... I can only see good things ultimately coming from it.

    2. Re:I See A Vision, A Vision of ... ActiveX by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think it's useful to develop an open web 3d standard, despite the dancing GIF animations it brings to mind. What I foresee is either MS or MS sock puppet(s) getting a seat at the table. Suddenly, "Open" ActiveX is the solution.

      Umm, do you have any idea who the Khronos group is? It's Apple, Sun, Id, Creative, Sony, Intel, AMD/ATI, and NVIDIA among others. They make OpenGL and pretty much all of them have a vested interest in keeping the standards open and usable by everyone and NOT controlled by Microsoft. The main purpose behind Khronos these days is to provide a usable alternative to DirectX.

    3. Re:I See A Vision, A Vision of ... ActiveX by Symbolis · · Score: 2, Informative

      Promoting Members and Contributing Members of Khronos Group

    4. Re:I See A Vision, A Vision of ... ActiveX by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      No, no, Open ActiveX won't work. Open is out and Microsoft already has the DirectX brand for 3D stuff...Let's see....

      iDirectX? No, don't wanna ge sued by Apple
      ActiveDirectX? Too confusing...
      Web DirectX? Nahhhh...it ain't 1997 anymore.
      DirectX Live? Probably would get confused with Xbox360 Live...

      Oh, I know!

      DirectX Cloud Edition!

      --
      My blog
    5. Re:I See A Vision, A Vision of ... ActiveX by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Umm, do you have any idea who the Khronos group is?

      Yes! We are Klingons!

      --
      My blog
    6. Re:I See A Vision, A Vision of ... ActiveX by ppierre · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I see MS getting in there too, ...

      No but when Mozilla and Web-Kit would have 3D canvas, you would be happy to see Microsoft pushing silver light 3 by automatic update...

      (and use a nice JavaScript library to bridge the gap)

    7. Re:I See A Vision, A Vision of ... ActiveX by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure it'll give rise to "dancing gif" syndrome, but more a replacement for SVG.

      Why do we need a replacement for SVG? On the other hand, if it is for animating SVGs, why wouldn't it give rise to "dancing GIF" syndrome?

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    8. Re:I See A Vision, A Vision of ... ActiveX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Apple, Sun, Id, Creative, Sony, Intel, AMD/ATI, and NVIDIA among others.

      Id - OK, and maybe Intel and AMD.

      Sun? They're pretty late to the party, and we're not sure they're on board.

      But Apple? Creative? Nvidia? SONY?!?!?!

      You hold these guys up as pillars of openness?!?!?

      What the hell have you been smoking that makes you believe that the makers/backers of itunes/ipod, BD+, pervertors of the CD standard have any interest in making things open and accessible to everyone?!?!

    9. Re:I See A Vision, A Vision of ... ActiveX by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sun? They're pretty late to the party, and we're not sure they're on board. But Apple? Creative? Nvidia? SONY?!?!?! You hold these guys up as pillars of openness?!?!?

      We weren't discussing openness. We were discussing the possibility raised by the previous poster about making this standard into an MS controlled ActiveX based technology. Sony has a terrible record on openness in general, but they rarely if ever support closed technologies controlled by others, especially Microsoft. Sony also has a vested interest in some standards, such as OpenGL which they have been a good citizen with regard to.

      What the hell have you been smoking that makes you believe that the makers/backers of itunes/ipod, BD+, pervertors of the CD standard have any interest in making things open and accessible to everyone?!?!

      All of these companies have a history of promoting open standards for technology when in situations where said standards provide them with significant benefits and help cancel out the dangers of closed standards controlled by Microsoft. They've all been implementing the Khronos group technologies they help develop and all those are open technologies. What makes you think this new one added to the list will be any different?

      You're just trolling anyway, aren't you?

    10. Re:I See A Vision, A Vision of ... ActiveX by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      I don't think MS will "get in there". To win this one, all they have to do is wait. Web designers all over the world will continue to curse IE for not supporting the best new features, but they still won't be able to add it to their web site because it won't work for 90% of the world.

    11. Re:I See A Vision, A Vision of ... ActiveX by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      This does not work that way. Microsoft sits in the consortium, then rips out the ideas and implements 90% of it incompatible under their own umbrella and nails everything they can grab with patents.

      Then you have to wait at least 10 years until you get a half working standards implementation from them. Works that way every time. See CSS2, Dom Level2, SVG (which currently is named differently and works only in Silverlight in their 90% fully incompatible implementation), Windows Media 9 etc...
      The list of those tricks is endless...
      Even OpenGL and Corba is on that list!

  9. dunno about Khronos by Sayshu · · Score: 0

    Khronos seemed to have lost a lot of credibility with the last openGL update. I seem to recollect many feeling betrayed by false promises, and missed dates by them. A Web standard would hopefully have a priority, but past indications do not make this look appealing.

    1. Re:dunno about Khronos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The OpenGL 3.1 spec was released this week at GDC and is already getting some pretty positive feedback.

      Perhaps Khronos learned from its past misteps and is moving forward in a positive direction? Here's to hoping!

  10. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. Noooo. Noooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

  11. Oh yeah, open standards always = success by sootman · · Score: 1

    Unlike previous attempts to establish 3D standards for the web, this one might be actually successful due to the use of existing open standards...

    In 12 months--hell, I'll give them 24, so they've got a year for implementations after the standard is set--I imagine the success of this will be somewhere between that of VRML and SVG.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  12. I'm being pedantic today, but... by mcgrew · · Score: 0

    You can't have 3D content on a 2D surface. When we get holographic displays we'll have 3D content, but until then it's perspective, not 3D.

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
    1. Re:I'm being pedantic today, but... by spinkham · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I got all excited about the 3-D aspect. I thought perhaps this would finally let me reach through the Internet and punch loudmouth jerks right in the windpipe. Seems not yet. Pity.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
    2. Re:I'm being pedantic today, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that it's 3D content though, as opposed to 2D content on a 2D surface. When we get holographic displays you'll just have a hit a switch because all of the content will already be 3D.

    3. Re:I'm being pedantic today, but... by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pedantic is one thing, just plain wrong is another.

      You can't have 3D content on a 2D surface.

      "Content" is logical, not physical, and therefore this statement is wrong. And the web isn't a 2d surface (or any other kind of surface), so even if the statement was true so far as it goes, it would still be irrelevant to whether there can be 3D content on the Web. And since the human visual system uses a pair of 2D sensors to synthesize a 3-dimensional model of the portion of the universe seen, its pretty clear that you can present as good of a presentation of 3D content as humans can deal with using via 2D images, provided you do it just right. And, of course, you can do 2D projections from a 3D model even with one 2D surface, with quite useful results (and, if you deliver the 3D model to the user agent, which then performs whatever requested manipulations the user wants, with a whole lot less latency than if the server had to generate 2D images from a 3D object model and send them over the wire in response to queries for different views of the same model from the same user agent.)

      When we get holographic displays we'll have 3D content, but until then it's perspective, not 3D.

      You confuse presentation mechanisms with content.

    4. Re:I'm being pedantic today, but... by Virak · · Score: 1

      You're not being 'pedantic', you're being 'incorrect'. How do you think they get fancy effects like "being able to look at things from any angle"? It is actually 3D, even if it's rendered in 2D for display on the screen.

    5. Re:I'm being pedantic today, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so looking at the tree out my window is 2d content?

  13. What next, a coffeemaker? by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1

    What will they add to web content next, a coffeemaker? (besides that, I think the summary is missing a "3D" somewhere...)

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

  14. In your face advertising on steroids? by fragMasterFlash · · Score: 1

    I, for one, do not welcome the 3D float-over advertisement overlords. It is bad enough to see reputable sites use simple 2D float-over ads on their pages, but full 3D might force me to go text only or completely skip sites that allow these shenanigans.

    1. Re:In your face advertising on steroids? by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      well if what happens in SecondLife sometimes happens
      the advertising is not just on steroids but on CDC lab grade acid and Meth and Enough steroids to put a blue whale in RoidRage.

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  15. Comment title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FUCK YEA-

    wait, ECMAScript? Isn't that like Javascript?
    Aw, but I slightly dislike Javascript! BAWWWWW

    Also, there's not a lot of use for this yet, other than... I ... I don't know what. Using Javascript and OpenGL for more advanced browser games without the hassle of Flash?

    I guess I can get behind that.
    Oh, but yeah, make it like a plugin or something.

  16. Khronos? by jshackles · · Score: 1

    Looks like a slow news day for Earth. Meanwhile, on the Klingon home world, they've released a new 3D browser technology.

  17. Open source 3D web has already begun by rexping · · Score: 2, Informative

    First prototype of the 3D web is already run at thousands of Opensim servers all around the globe. The 3D Web bears similarities to 2D Web; Users can follow links to teleport from a 3D world to another one. 3D Viewers are used to browse the 3D content on the servers. Check it out here: IT giants back up open source 3D Web.

  18. Tired, TIRED of 3D by fm6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Went to see Coraline last weekend. Good movie, but the best thing I can say about its use of 3D is that it didn't get in the way. Mostly.

    All these idiots who keep pushing 3D media at us. WE DON'T WANT IT. It doesn't make anything "more real". Quite the opposite. Since you can never do it completely right with anything resembling current media, you end up with a lot of half-baked complications (the "foreground" objects in Coraline often look like cardboard cutouts) that make it that much harder to immerse yourself in the movie, the GUI, or whatever.

    (When you invent a completely new medium in which 3D makes sense, like those "holodecks" on Star Trek, get back to us.)

    And as for GUIs, they make interaction more complicated. The whole point of GUIs is to make interaction simpler. If I want to keep track of a lot of extraneous detail, I'll use a CLI.

    I write hardware manuals for a living, and there are some people at our company who want us to start embedding 3D interactive models in the PDF versions of our manuals. If I thought this proposal was going to go anywhere (we don't even have enough resources to do more basic authoring easily) I'd be very noisily opposing it. Lots of extra work, all to make using our manuals a little more difficult. No thanks.

    1. Re:Tired, TIRED of 3D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One more argument against putting 3D models in PDF: is that shit standard? Would people even be able to view the PDF on Linux and Mac? (P.S.: you don't install Acrobat Reader on Mac OS X, that's just stupid as the OS can view regular PDFs just fine).

    2. Re:Tired, TIRED of 3D by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      you would need to install acrobat to pick up the Atmosphere bits to do the 3d stuff

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    3. Re:Tired, TIRED of 3D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (the "foreground" objects in Coraline often look like cardboard cutouts)

      Possibly because they were cardboard cut outs. The film is a stopmotion animation after all.

    4. Re:Tired, TIRED of 3D by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Uh, where do you get stop motion == cardboard cutouts? In fact, all Henry Selick movies use elaborate models.

  19. Existing addon? by jimshatt · · Score: 1, Interesting

    How does this relate to the canvas:3d project and related addon?

  20. What if? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if Apple, Mozilla and Opera are all on-board with the idea and implement it correctly, a bit like the old "alpha PNGs work on everything but IE6" period?

    What if it catches on and leaves Microsoft even farther behind? What if this finally makes Microsoft lose its grip on the Web? No more Flash, Silverlight killed before it could do any real damage, and no more IE to nurse and code around?

    Bring it on.

    Posted A.C. because of the Microsoft Zealots.

  21. JavaScript sucks. by tjstork · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I just cannot believe that there are people out there who would hang the future of user interface and client design on JavaScript...

    JavaScript is a terrible language and a terrible environment to debug in compared to what you can do with a normal client application.

    --
    This is my sig.
  22. I would rather.. by zogger · · Score: 1

    ..an automatic way - an option- for webpages (with some "standards" sort of code) to automatically redirect-based on the viewers settings- to the opposite of 3D live motion spinning and whatnot full flash full bloat page, to the low res/print this page version. It is really bogus when all you want is the text, but you have to load the full bloat version *just* to find the "print this article" link. That sort of defeats the purpose. Images off and noscript and ABP helps, but that still isn't enough.

    Maybe this is possible now, but I don't know how to do it. Running a text based browser does not much good if the web page you land on (most of them now it seems) is very text based browser unfriendly.

    Something like a desktop version of .mobi, along those lines, and if it became common coding practice.

  23. Fantastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a web designer slash whatever-I-want-to-call-myself, and one of the services I provide to some niche clients is in the realm of 3D. I can see why people complain. But as much as I hate to slow down your browser, I assume most of us here can agree that if *something* has to slow down your browser, at least it shouldn't involve some bulky proprietary blob of junk that crashes your browser 5 times a day.

    3D and the web have been buddies for much longer than the typical /. "anti-3D web" comment has been around. The new thing about this announcement is NOT that 3D and the web are being paired; rather, it's that it's being done in an open fashion. Rock on!

  24. Ways to put 3D content on the Web. by Animats · · Score: 1

    There are already plenty of ways to put "3D on the Web".

    • Shockwave. Like Flash, but has a full 3D engine. Some versions even had the Havok physics engine. Never became as popular as Flash, but there are some good casual games in it.
    • VRML. It works now. In 1997, few PCs had enough graphics hardware to run VRML well. Now they do. Nobody uses it any more, but it wasn't a bad idea. It was just too early.
    • X3D, or "Web3D". This is simply VRML in XML syntax. The XML crowd took over VRML and tried to turn it into a spinning-logo system. Nobody uses this, and the transition killed VRML.
    • Java 3D. (Well, Sun screwed that up, but it can still be run.)
    • SolidWorks Viewer. Like Adobe Acrobat for engineers. Making a model requires expensive SolidWorks, but the 3D viewer is free. Widely used by people who make real stuff.
    1. Re:Ways to put 3D content on the Web. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quakelive comes to mind immediately. Except in reverse...

  25. Back to the 90s? by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

    Man, I miss people asking for VRML galleries and stores. The same way I miss getting kicked in the head repeatedly.

    I had the same reaction. And it was just SOOOOO successful last time we went down this road.

    That being said, the hardware is about two orders of magnitude more powerful than it was in the 90s. I can now do 3D visualizations in Java that would have been difficult in C on dedicated hardware back then.

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    1. Re:Back to the 90s? by vlm · · Score: 1

      I had the same reaction. And it was just SOOOOO successful last time we went down this road.

      That being said, the hardware is about two orders of magnitude more powerful than it was in the 90s.

      It wasn't unsuccessful because it was slow. It was unsuccessful because it was USELESS (for all but gaming or 3d CAD purposes).

      Last time around in the late 90s I fooled around with making 3d-graphical visualizations of data. Turned out to be totally useless.

      Maybe virtual pr0n. Maybe. Other than pr0n, gaming, and some CAD, what good is it?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Back to the 90s? by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      I don't completely disagree but I think that is only one issue.

      I would argue that it failed because:

      • It was unreliable.
      • Even when it worked it was as slow as molasses.
      • There were many completing standards or implementations.
      • It was rarely useful.

      Even today there is no single overriding standard for distributing interactive 3D visualizations on the web or otherwise.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    3. Re:Back to the 90s? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eCommerce, you can view, rotate and zoom 3D representations of objects. Very interesting for business in MANY areas.

  26. Name by sloomis · · Score: 1

    Couldn't they come up with a name that was not so similar (read: identical) to a fairly popular software package. http://www.kronos.com/

    1. Re:Name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Khronos is not the name of the standard, it is the name of the group that defines the standard.

  27. Mr. Document meet Mr. Hack by pdxdada · · Score: 3, Informative

    If I remember my history, HTML started as a way to store linked information. Then it was badly hacked to be a way to poorly layout documents. Then java script was stapled onto it. Then the whole mess was turned into the kluge that is ajax. Now someone's trying to duct tape 3-D onto that.

    I for one look forward to a day when the web is a more dynamic environment, where information is presented more fluidly instead relying on the old metaphor of static published pages, but I can't believe this is a sane way forward. It seems like instead of looking for a better way to present information they're just duct taping crap onto the same old model. Kind of like achieving flight by strapping a rocket motor to horse drawn carriage.

    --
    Don't mess with the bunny, outsideworld.org
    1. Re:Mr. Document meet Mr. Hack by Unoti · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a lot of duct tape crap, I'll admit. But the current system has a lot of pretty solid ideas and systems that work well, too. For example, HTTP, and the general stateless nature of the web works great. Proxies, and caching, and other supporting technologies are actually pretty good or at least work really well.

      Ajax sucks and is kludgey. But really I don't even notice, even though I code with it every day. That's because I've got it all abstracted away into super easy to use libraries. Lots of it is really lame, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest, because the tools I use (some I've created, some off the shelf) make it all a snap.

      If we were to start from scratch the finished product might be simpler. But there's a real strong ecosystem of powerful tools and infrastructure all built around HTTP. Strange and cobbled together as it may look, it makes for a great foundation to build other things on.

      So I wouldn't start from scratch. I'd start with what we've got and get a head start, and spend the extra brainpower or more worthwhile innovation.

    2. Re:Mr. Document meet Mr. Hack by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      If I would start from scratch, I probably would kill the entire http post get aspects and would make everything get only with unlimited length of the get content!

      Why they even made this distinction is beyound me!
      Besides that I would add subsegment isolation to the dom so that there is a base for a real component set. I would probably stay on javascript for the dynamic binding, but would start off with EcmaScript 4 so that real inheritance and namespaces are added! (Tell me what you will the current state of the art with prototypes and maps just enforces incompatibilities between libraries in those two areas) or I would go for another alternative like ruby entirely!

      Websockets or another socket like system must be added to the base protocol.

      Also a must would be real multithreading on language level! This together with real sockets would go a long way to get this hack ajax out of the way and add a decent real communications layer!

      Also on the political side I would try to enforce a certain branding, so that shenannigans like Microsoft has pulled in the past and still does are prevented (web 2000, web 2008 or so)

      Parts which are not broken are xhtml and CSS conceptualwise, the implementations are lousy as they are in most browser with way too many bugs.

      And es one part I would overhaul, I would enforce an extended widget set for forms, so that real input forms are possible without hacks (I know there are standards doing this, but no one bothers to implement them)

      That basically sums up my list of what has to be fixed on every stage of the current http/html/browser level to make web programming less hackish and less magic!

    3. Re:Mr. Document meet Mr. Hack by daemonburrito · · Score: 1

      Read.

      No offense, but if you're not using the POST method for actions with side-effects, you're doing it wrong.

      Note that HTTP has all the CRUD methods and then some (though most servers are configured to make do with POST and GET). In any case, doing everything with GET is dangerous and wrong.

      Imo, RESTful systems are the way to go, and the web should remain stateless. In other words, HTTP is great.

    4. Re:Mr. Document meet Mr. Hack by TomorrowPlusX · · Score: 1

      We call that "gopher".

      --

      lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
    5. Re:Mr. Document meet Mr. Hack by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Great so now we have rest which is basically a workaround arund the limitations of http get and it tries to squeeze everything into get.

      The biggest issue is that get itself is length limited which makes it hard to get a state into unlimited length forms...

      As for post it would not be needed in systems with a real socket interface and a decent connection to it. (you could also name http post a subset of what I am thinking of)

      The entire http protocol is fundamentally broken in this regard and systems of around 1980 already were more sophisticated!

      I always have the feeling that a lot of web framework designers are so blinded by 20 years of antipatterns that they do not see that their entire work is basically just fixups for a few things which should be solved on protocol level!

    6. Re:Mr. Document meet Mr. Hack by daemonburrito · · Score: 1

      With respect, I disagree. People have a lot of definitions for REST, but I don't think yours is totally accurate. REST uses all of the HTTP methods. The workarounds for PUT and DELETE are because of specific servers not supporting them.

      Session cookies do not break the REST model. Even when people use the url to pass state, it doesn't contain the state itself, just an id (plenty of room for that). And REST has the bonus of gracefully accommodating people like me (and probably you) who hack the url when the application's interface fails us. Similarly, REST apps make content easier to index.

      What you and the originator of this thread are really proposing is making the web stateful and ditching the document metaphor. Lots of people will agree with me that this is not a good idea, and it's not because we're "blinded by 20 years of antipatterns". HTTP is not broken.

      Also, I think you should examine what you're using GET for. I've never encountered the problem that you're using as a reason for scrapping HTTP.

      Summing up, HTTP is just fine. If you like, you can create a protocol that looks like the one you describe. In fact, many have, but nothing has come close to the usefulness and resiliency of HTTP. So good luck, but hands off HTTP please.

  28. You mean accelerate VRML? by wiresquire · · Score: 1

    Whatever happened to VRML? I remember seeing some examples of this years ago.
    ...*googles*... wikipedia....enlightenment!

    VRML has turned into X3D. Of course! It had to be XML'ified.

    Why not accelerate this?

    Actually, I'm not even sure that I want accel 3D in my browser. I have enough issues with graphics drivers OUTSIDE of the browser without making the browser crash too...

    ws

    --

    So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?

    1. Re:You mean accelerate VRML? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      I was going to mention those two previous technologies; but you beat me to it.

      I used to play around with VRML quite a bit. What I took away from its failure to be widely adopted was that performance matters more than standardization for 3-d enthusiasts.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  29. "opera-3d" canvas context by AndrewStephens · · Score: 1

    Its not clear to me from the press release how this differs from Opera's experimental "opera-3d" canvas context.

    What is really needed is a high-level format for storing 3D models, with easy software for content creation and importing models from existing 3D modelers. There have been attempts to do this before, VRML and Adobe's acrobat reader both support 3D. Nobody really uses it outside of a few specialized fields.

    --
    sheep.horse - does not contain information on sheep or horses.
    1. Re:"opera-3d" canvas context by MasterOfDisaster · · Score: 1

      There is a high level format like the one you speak of. COLLADA another open standard managed by the Khronos group. Many 3D authoring applications and game engines support this format, and I would not be at all surprised if they chose COLLADA as the format for transferring geometry in this new 3D web standard.

      --
      The opinions in this post are ficticious. Any similarity to actual opinions, real or imagined, is purely coincidental.
    2. Re:"opera-3d" canvas context by daemonburrito · · Score: 1

      COLLADA is pretty great, though it's pretty tough to generate. I always end up using Blender or SketchUp to get a rough idea of what the tree is going to look like before I write the code (seems to be more efficient than wading through the docs).

      Also, COLLADA does a lot more than represent 3D models...

      You probably already know this, but for those who don't: COLLADA is also the format used for models in Google Earth.

  30. You are obviously running AdBlock+ by DrYak · · Score: 2, Informative

    but we all know that you're just going to have 3d rotating logs, 3d menus and other such junk more than anything else.

    Ok. Obvisouly, your favorite browser FireFox and you're using AdBlock+ and/or noscript on a regular basis.

    Just turn them off for 10 minutes and try to surf the web. Keep sharp and pointed object away from you as you might get tempted to gouge your eyes in the process.

    Yes, probably a couple of geocities- and myspace- like pages will get useless 3d gizmos.

    But the most massive usage that the other users of the web are going to endure are even more obtrusive animated advertisements. (As if full-screen out-of-the-browser-window flash animations weren't enough).

    Prepare for giant rotating 3D renders of "p1lls", "r0lex replicaz", etc...

    Well. That, and porn.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  31. these guys obviously are doomed to repeat... by johnjones · · Score: 1

    what exactly does this have over VRML ?

    why not build a VRML into the browser then ?

    regards

    John Jones

  32. This is a fish looking for a bicycle by spankyofoz · · Score: 1

    Sure it sounds cool, but what the hell is it going to do with it?

    Call em strange, but I prefer my 2d displays to be 2d

    --

    - There is no point, it's like a sphere -
  33. ECMASCRIPT!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just use javascript!

    1. Re:ECMASCRIPT!!!! by mlauzon · · Score: 1

      ECMAScript = JavaScript

      --
      Michael
      http://s1.sfgame.us/index.php?rec=58163
  34. UI Innovation Naysayers by Unoti · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since the dawn of man, every UI innovation has been poo-poo'd by the old guard.

    When GUI's came out, people said that it was faster to use old keypunch machines. And perhaps it was, at first, but the operators had to be much more skilled and took longer to train.

    When browser-based apps came out, a lot of people said that we're all better off with thick client apps that can have a more responsive UI.

    Flash and Javascript, people complain about their misuse. But how they're misused is missing the point compared to the good things they've done in changing the landscape of the web. Examples include Youtube, Google Maps. I realize a lot of people don't want to use Flash or Javascript at all, and that's cool with me. But such people are missing out.

    There's a lot of 3D applications in our future. Virtual worlds, learning, exploring, sharing experiences together-- all of those things are best done in 3d. Looking at pictures of the Acropolis is one thing. But to really get a "feel" for it, for how big it is, for what it might have been like to be there, you really get more out of exploring a 3d model. Ideally with a guide or a friend.

    There's real benefit in 3d, even though a lot of people won't see it. I won't deny that some applications of it will suck, especially at first. But long term, the web could become a fine standards compliant delivery mechanism for 3d apps.

    1. Re:UI Innovation Naysayers by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      When browser-based apps came out, a lot of people said that we're all better off with thick client apps that can have a more responsive UI.

      There are those of us that STILL say that... and we're right!

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
  35. YES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time for 3D pr0n!

  36. RTFA? by daemonburrito · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wow. This is the most uninformed discussion I've seen in years.

    This has nothing to do with markup (VRML, x3D, etc). It is about the browser exposing an opengl API to javascript.

    According to TFA, it's Mozilla that is proposing building the functionality into a browser (but it could be any other ecmascript container). Since Mozilla is contributing to the standard (and started the initiative), we should expect this to absorb Canvas:3D (i.e., this is not a redundancy).

    This standardization is a Good Thing. Everyone's concerns about advertisers abusing this should be directed towards advertisers, not this totally useful idea. Also, noscript rocks.

    To all who think javascript just sucks, you don't know how to use it. Stop using it like it's C.

    And if it replaces that leaky, closed, insecure, inaccessible, non-semantic and patent-encumbered plugin that almost killed the Web, awesome. With any luck, it'll kill DirectX too.

  37. Remember 3DML...? by mlauzon · · Score: 1

    Anyone remember 3DML (http://www.flatland.com/), at one point in time it got really big, was easier to use than VRML then dropped off the face of the earth due to lack of updates to the language and the Rover plugin, etc. Of course, 3DML has been over taken by the much more advanced 3DMLW (http://www.3dmlw.com/) -- no relation to Flatland's version. So, really, is this anything new; I don't think so?!

    --
    Michael
    http://s1.sfgame.us/index.php?rec=58163
  38. Valgrind much? by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

    There are lots of automated tools that can be used to exercise these APIs for safety. Many of them did not exist when the previous generation of these standards was proposed.

  39. It's not about 3D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you think that OpenGL is only good for 3-D, you don't know OpenGL. It is also fantastic for image processing and compositing. Also, it's much easier to generate many images directly in 3-D than it is to try to "simulate" them in 2-D.

    1. Re:It's not about 3D by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Where did I even mention OpenGL?

  40. It's about time by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

    After many years, the #1 most commonly used application will finally have direct access to the fancy rendering hardware we paid so much for.

  41. Do it NOW by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

    It seem like one could use swig or a similar tool and get this working very quickly.