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

91–100 of 241 posts

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

#91

Post by zodiakzz »

otrahuevada wrote: post #52

The naming is unfortunate. But also, it'd be pretty cool if this was implemented as a browser extension, that way it could be much faster to iterate over. I wonder why this is not common practice? Modifying browser internals is such a pain that it strikes me as odd that it is the 1 established way of going about this proposals.

If I am not wrong, a functional version can be written in plain JS (+ WASM?) using Custom Elements (tho tag names must contain a hyphen). Except I don't know why all the non-Google stakeholders are hell bent on sabotaging Custom Elements. While Google is doing so much innovation in that space. Strange.

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

#92

Post by BiteCode_dev »

gruez wrote: post #81
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You, the dev. Not you the client, hence the user. It's closed software by design, and we all have seen where it leads to.

>You, the dev. As per the parent comment, it's not exposed to the javascript running on the page, which is arguably the "dev" in this case. >Not you the client, hence the user. I fail to see how it being exposed to the javascript running on the page or not makes a meaningful difference to the user. Are we expecting the average user to interact with the page via the developer console or something? >and we all have see…

> I fail to see how it being exposed to the javascript running on the page or not makes a meaningful difference to the user. Are we expecting the average user to interact with the page via the developer console or something?

No, but I'm expecting the average user to be able to enjoy an open ecosystem. Such as bookmarklet, addons, client side widgets, electron apps, WASM plugins, and all the wonderful things we can't yet think of now.

Instead, we will have one more walled garden.

And just like that, piece by piece, the next step in the IT revolution will be more and more close. Because that's the plan, that's what they want. Something the computer runs, but has no control over.

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

#93

Post by EamonnMR »

A model is no better than a image without animation. So at the minimum it needs to support animation. But of course an animation with no interactivity is no better than a video. So it needs to support interactivity. Now you're talking about a bunch of scripting, to which (as they point out) Babylon and Three.js are well suited. I don't see the point of adding this to the browser when canvas exists, unless the point is to take components out of Babylon/Three and put them into fast browser code.

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

#94

Post by jchw »

doctornoble wrote: post #86
jchw wrote: post #60

I’m annoyed at the realization that Safari will likely support this before it supports WebM or Ogg.

WebM support has been added to Safari 15

For macOS, where you can also install Chrome or Firefox if you wanted to. Not iOS. Not even in beta.

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

#95

Post by BiteCode_dev »

imwillofficial wrote: post #67
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You, the dev. Not you the client, hence the user. It's closed software by design, and we all have seen where it leads to.

Closed software? You mean being used by every person on earth every day of their lives?

People also consume refined sugar, alcohol, saturated fat and cigarettes regularly.

Just because something is common doesn't mean it's good for you.

I'm not against closed software mind you, I'm using some myself, but the web as a platform has reached this amazing stage because it's been built on openness. And now the very same companies that became rich thanks to this openness want to close it to get all the benefits for themself.

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

#96

Post by astlouis44 »

gkilmain wrote: post #19
moron4hire wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Browsers do integrate with VR headsets. And it is awesome.

This is intriguing (and new to me). Can you point me to something you enjoy that I can look at? Not even sure what to search...

Try vrland.io/lobby

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

#97

Post by Telemakhos »

raxxorrax wrote: post #2

> Privacy considerations Rendered data is not exposed to / extractable by the page in this proposal, so no tainting is required. We do expect this would require extensions to Fetch (a new destination type), Content Security Policy (a new policy directive), and likely a few others. I do buy 3d model data occasionally (hobby, not for professional uses). I think most stores obfustcate the data somehow although I never t…

As I understand it, this is not so much about DRM as it is about privacy. The new model tag allows the browser to sandbox the display of a 3d object without reporting information back to the web page/server. This way, the browser can use camera data to track the user eye position relative to the device for parallax or to show what is behind the device to accomplish the effect known as "augmented reality." In other words, Apple wants developers to be able to deploy augmented reality experiences on the web without giving them access to the user's camera, which is a privacy issue.

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

#98

Post by gruez »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #92
gruez wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You, the dev. As per the parent comment, it's not exposed to the javascript running on the page, which is arguably the "dev" in this case. >Not you the client, hence the user. I fail to see how it being exposed to the javascript running on the page or not makes a meaningful difference to the user. Are we expecting the average user to interact with the page via the developer console or something? >and we all have see…

> I fail to see how it being exposed to the javascript running on the page or not makes a meaningful difference to the user. Are we expecting the average user to interact with the page via the developer console or something? No, but I'm expecting the average user to be able to enjoy an open ecosystem. Such as bookmarklet, addons, client side widgets, electron apps, WASM plugins, and all the wonderful things we can't…

>No, but I'm expecting the average user to be able to enjoy an open ecosystem. Such as bookmarklet, addons, client side widgets, electron apps, WASM plugins, and all the wonderful things we can't yet think of now.

But there's still webgl and . I'm failing to see what type of use cases we're missing out on here, because javascript access is missing.

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

#99

Post by matsemann »

snet0 wrote: post #72
matsemann wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My point isn't from a "a single person should be able to build this" perspective. But from a "big players misuse this to grab market share" perspective. Like how youtube was slow in Firefox for years, since they used APIs only existing in Chrome. Others follow suit, and thus other browsers are forced to either implement the same thing (thus making it a "standard") or lose market share since stuff works better in other browsers.

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

#100

Post by jeroenhd »

stefan_ wrote: post #71
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.

As a user, I curse every time a website decides that my theme is incompatible with my computer's theme and that my scroll bar should in fact be bright red and 1 pixel wide just like on the designer's Macbook, and that buttons should look exactly like tabs, links, checkboxes and radio boxes because that's what the brand designer wanted. Native component's can't be styled because of very good reasons and unless you're developing a game they probably shouldn't be.

HN uses purely native components and it's one of the best websites I regularly visit. Fast, responsive, works on every device. I can't help but feel like web developers recreating native components are doing so out of incompetence or complete disregard of usability.

Post reply on HN