No mention of WebGL? http://www.khronos.org/webgl/
or X3D or O3D... the author should have done some googling.
Is it too early to consider 3D html?
21–29 of 29 posts
Re: Is it too early to consider 3D html?
#22Researchers at UC Berkley and Microsoft Research have suggested that 3D displays are bad for your eyes:
http://www.journalofvision.org/8/3/33/article.aspx
3D HTML could be cool, but I'm a bit concerned about the possible long-term side effects.
Re: Is it too early to consider 3D html?
#23I think that there may need to be some extensions to HTML to support 3D rendering interfaces, but most of the changes should be handled in CSS. HTML is all about content. If someone wants to render their site navigation as a 3D ball at the top of the screen it does not change the actual text or links in the least. It is only a presentation change.
I don't agree. X3D for example give a xml way of describing objects. While text on a ball is one thing, what if you want to describe a scene? For example, what if the 3D is the content, not the text that goes with it.
I'm currently working on a medical imaging app that displays 3D models using o3d. In this case, you can use JSON (or google's binary format) to import description of objects and scripting is all done with javascript. X3D is similar but uses xml as I said to describe the objects.
Re: Is it too early to consider 3D html?
#24http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML
My first thought as well.
I'll never understand how anybody looked at all the amazing possibilities that were opening up due to the web in 1995 and thought "the next thing this really needs is a 3D environment!"... Oh well, I guess that was back when the 'Net was The Future and hackers were going to be able to kill you through your virtual reality headset.
Re: Is it too early to consider 3D html?
#25How about 3D CSS Transforms?
http://developer.apple.com/safari/library/documentation/Inte...
Re: Is it too early to consider 3D html?
#26http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML
Exactly. My initial impression was: "whaaa.... is it 1995 again?". But hey, perhaps somebody does need it.
This might be a case of the dunning kruger effect in action. The blogger doesn't know enough about the web that he'd suggest a fancy new technology called 3d HTML without even knowing that it already exists.
How many people rely on inexperienced individuals like this for advice about the web when the advice giver him/herself doesn't even know their words are two decades late...
Re: Is it too early to consider 3D html?
#27The article wasn't talking about drawing or graphics, but rendering things like DIVs as Cubes and arranging standard html objects in a 3D space.
Re: Is it too early to consider 3D html?
#28I want 4-D HTML so that an image of the sunken city of R'lyeh can be rendered properly in all its non-Euclidean glory. Ia! Ia! Cthullu fhtagn!
Nobody will ever want 3-D HTML anymore than anyone wants 3-D movies. The motherfuckers who down voted me will soon realize this.
Ia! Ia! Cthullu fhtagn!
Re: Is it too early to consider 3D html?
#29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML
My first thought as well. I'll never understand how anybody looked at all the amazing possibilities that were opening up due to the web in 1995 and thought "the next thing this really needs is a 3D environment!"... Oh well, I guess that was back when the 'Net was The Future and hackers were going to be able to kill you through your virtual reality headset.
In True Names, Neuromancer, and Snow Crash, the future user interface was 3D. Science fiction writers wouldn't lead us astray, would they?