Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple proposes adding "model" element to HTML that displays 3D content

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 241 posts

Re: Apple proposes adding "model" element to HTML that displays 3D content

#71

Post by stefan_ »

JusticeJuice wrote: post #50

Based on the comments so far, I think I'm in the minority who think this would be a good feature for the web. This proposal might not be perfect, but I think the idea is great. There's lots of good reasons to semantically want to embed a 3d model in a page, like any other type of media. Say you're writing a course explaining how differential gears work - a 3d model of that could be really handy to look at to learn. A…

It seems history teaches us the exact opposite. Nobody uses the native input elements because they can't be sufficiently styled and customized but simultaneously have significant behavior differences between browsers. They also of course languished for the longest time, at points looking out of place with the browser chrome itself.

Re: Apple proposes adding "model" element to HTML that displays 3D content

#72

Post by snet0 »

matsemann wrote: post #53
snet0 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming I'm reading your snark correctly, is this really such a bad thing? People here seem to have a rose-tinted view of the internet's past, before Google, Apple et al. "abused" their browsers' position to push changes into the spec. I can certainly see that apparently there are a lot of HN commenters who would like to go back to the days of IE and no real web technologies or much progress, but I think practically…

I don't mind new capabilities, but I hate how many new browser features are "standards" invented by Google for their own products which everyone else have to implement to remain a competitive browser. Not fan of the prospect of Apple doing the same. If I wanted to make what Apple is making, I would have to rely on webgl. Them inventing something for their own use case when other stuff exists feels just unnecessary. T…

While I do accept the point, I think part of this is just that Google and Apple are the companies doing a large amount of work in the browser space. Because of this, they are likely to be the companies who see the hole that should be filled, or the opportunity to improve something.

Who are the people that should be making browser spec proposals, if not the people building browsers?

Yes, it sucks if you want to write your own browser, and now have to play catch up with the big boys throwing their weight around. But I don't think this is points against Google or Apple. Our browser technology shouldn't be held back by some romantic dream of individuals being able to build one from scratch, despite what many HNers seem to think. Even the best mechanics and engineers will struggle to build a car comparable to whatever rolls off of the large production lines. (I understand maybe that's a poor analogy, since you don't need all the bells and whistles of a new Toyota to be road-legal, while you do kind of need to keep up with the spec in order to be internet-usable (although there still are some IE11 holdouts..)).

Re: Apple proposes adding "model" element to HTML that displays 3D content

#73

Post by snet0 »

jkelleyrtp wrote: post #29
snet0 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming I'm reading your snark correctly, is this really such a bad thing? People here seem to have a rose-tinted view of the internet's past, before Google, Apple et al. "abused" their browsers' position to push changes into the spec. I can certainly see that apparently there are a lot of HN commenters who would like to go back to the days of IE and no real web technologies or much progress, but I think practically…

I don’t think the original comment had snark. I interpreted it is speculation around the rumored AR goggles.

Okay, if I misread that I apologise. I'm not following the rumors, so it seemed like "oh looks like Apple's coming out with another something something and needs to update the spec to handle it". I think my point remains, though.

Re: Apple proposes adding "model" element to HTML that displays 3D content

#74

Post by reportgunner »

neilv wrote: post #14

I don't understand why a 3D geometry model would best be called simply "model" in the context of HTML. The term "model" is a pretty generic term that's very relevant to HTML, already used heavily in Web frameworks, etc.

yeah just call it

Re: Apple proposes adding "model" element to HTML that displays 3D content

#75

Post by atom_arranger »

adamsvystun wrote: post #59
stefan_ wrote: post #8

WebGL exists, why do we need a budget restricted version of a model viewer in the browser? None of the motivations are at all convincing. Should browsers now be obliged to integrate with VR headsets?

Not exactly the same, but a similar question is then: "Canvas exists, why do we need an image element?"

I see a future where with some changes made to improve A11Y webpages are entirely rendered in WebGL.

Re: Apple proposes adding "model" element to HTML that displays 3D content

#76

Post by josefx »

sorenjan wrote: post #57

I think such an element would be welcome, and make it easier to add 3D elements to websites. A while ago I wanted to share some 3D models with people, but there weren't any good options. I found a couple sites that lets you upload .obj files, but you need an account and they worked by embedding renderers in iframes. If 3D models had better browser support I hope there would emerge some sites that would let you upload…

> I don't think it's stranger than having a video tag even though we could embed video without it previously. Having a dedicated 3D tag would make websites more semantic.

Video had literally thousands of commonly used sites embed third party players before we got a standard.

> A while ago I wanted to share some 3D models with people, but there weren't any good options.

So in contrast to video no one gives a shit?

> If 3D models had better browser support I hope there would emerge some sites that would let you upload and share them as easy as regular images now.

We have APIs to render 3D content (WebGL) have APIs to load random files from a site what more do you need for obj files?

> I don't agree with the tag name though. IMO, "model" is a singular 3D object. Such a tag should support scenes with multiple objects in them.

And what format will you use to describe these Scenes? obj doesn't handle animations or complex structures. What you want isn't a browser but a complete game engine.

Re: Apple proposes adding "model" element to HTML that displays 3D content

#77

Post by Joeri »

JusticeJuice wrote: post #50

Based on the comments so far, I think I'm in the minority who think this would be a good feature for the web. This proposal might not be perfect, but I think the idea is great. There's lots of good reasons to semantically want to embed a 3d model in a page, like any other type of media. Say you're writing a course explaining how differential gears work - a 3d model of that could be really handy to look at to learn. A…

Couldn’t you host a model custom element implementation on a cdn and get almost all those same benefits? I would rather see a turn to custom elements over extending the browser’s native set of tags further.

Re: Apple proposes adding "model" element to HTML that displays 3D content

#78

Post by snet0 »

dangerface wrote: post #61
snet0 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is basically that DRM is the technology that permits the existence of Netflix and similar. Perhaps I just lack a strength of principle, but I don't see why you'd remove one of the most-enjoyed aspects of the internet for the sake of uh... some kind of privacy-adjacent something?

Netflix make money from their subscription service not DRM. I can easily torrent anything I watch on netflix but I watch it on netflix because its easier. Thats why I pay for netflix its not because their DRM prevents me from pirating anything.

Sure, but do you not think Netflix would have issues acquiring content if users could right click->save everything they viewed?

Re: Apple proposes adding "model" element to HTML that displays 3D content

#79

Post by baybal2 »

JusticeJuice wrote: post #50

Based on the comments so far, I think I'm in the minority who think this would be a good feature for the web. This proposal might not be perfect, but I think the idea is great. There's lots of good reasons to semantically want to embed a 3d model in a page, like any other type of media. Say you're writing a course explaining how differential gears work - a 3d model of that could be really handy to look at to learn. A…

You can already embed VRML

Re: Apple proposes adding "model" element to HTML that displays 3D content

#80

Post by Jasper_ »

JusticeJuice wrote: post #50

Based on the comments so far, I think I'm in the minority who think this would be a good feature for the web. This proposal might not be perfect, but I think the idea is great. There's lots of good reasons to semantically want to embed a 3d model in a page, like any other type of media. Say you're writing a course explaining how differential gears work - a 3d model of that could be really handy to look at to learn. A…

Years of trying to treat models like images shows us it's a poor idea. Maybe now with Disney/Epic PBR being the standard material model it's closer but, that Panic truck? Good luck defining the exact lighting for that so it renders correctly and consistently.

The spec text even says that the lighting environment will come at a later date. So, no, you don't seemingly have any control over one of the most important parts that makes the visuals of your scene. Even VRML could do that.

Also seemingly no word on the camera position, or FOV, or anything else.

So it doesn't seem feasible to get even remotely matching renders, at which point, why bother?

Post reply on HN