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

101–110 of 241 posts

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

#101

Post by josefx »

sorenjan wrote: post #85
josefx wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? > I…

> Video had literally thousands of commonly used sites embed third party players before we got a standard. Yes, and now I can right click a video and open it in it's own tab, pop it open in an overlay, or download it easily. > So in contrast to video no one gives a shit? It's historically been more difficult to create 3D models than images or video. Now phones have lidar, photogrammetry is becoming more accessible, t…

> 3D could be more popular if it was easier to share and display.

Could be more popular? The APIs are already there, literally nothing stops you from writing a pure js lib that supports 3d models in a way that you want and can be reused on any site that needs it.

Video didn't have that, video needed 3rd party plugins to even run. Video still managed to attract a sizeable user based before that.

> You're right, browsers does have a lot in common with game engines.

The same way a toaster and a fridge both handle food. Of course I am all in favor of dropping Chrome for Unreal I think the later doesn't call home half as much.

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

#102

Post by atum47 »

When I was building my 3D engine for the web I thought about creating a component for this kind of thing: showing and interacting with a 3D model (I think this would be good for stores to display products) and I also thought about displaying panoramic images (inverted sphere with a 360º picture as texture), back then I found some other people doing something similar so I just gave up on the idea. But I for one think this would be a good feature.

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

#103

Post by CrazyPyroLinux »

baybal2 wrote: post #79
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

I was just coming here to say this, but as a joke. :)

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

#104

Post by tenaciousDaniel »

imwillofficial wrote: post #66
tenaciousDaniel wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only WebGL, but WebGPU is also in the works. I simply don't understand this proposal.

When I don’t understand something, I ask lots of questions.

My comment is general enough to be easily interpreted as a question. If you have an as to how this proposal is a necessary addition to WebGPU and WebGL, why not go with that, instead of snarky condescension?

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

#105

Post by spiderice »

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.

> Nobody uses the native input elements

This is definitely not true. Not even close.

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

#106

Post by sorenjan »

josefx wrote: post #101
sorenjan wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Video had literally thousands of commonly used sites embed third party players before we got a standard. Yes, and now I can right click a video and open it in it's own tab, pop it open in an overlay, or download it easily. > So in contrast to video no one gives a shit? It's historically been more difficult to create 3D models than images or video. Now phones have lidar, photogrammetry is becoming more accessible, t…

> 3D could be more popular if it was easier to share and display. Could be more popular? The APIs are already there, literally nothing stops you from writing a pure js lib that supports 3d models in a way that you want and can be reused on any site that needs it. Video didn't have that, video needed 3rd party plugins to even run. Video still managed to attract a sizeable user based before that. > You're right, browse…

> Could be more popular? The APIs are already there, literally nothing stops you from writing a pure js lib that supports 3d models in a way that you want and can be reused on any site that needs it.

The APIs are there, but not the renderer or a way to interact with it. I'm looking at it as a consumer, not a web developer. I don't want to have to write a library or use someones else's, that's the point. Browsers have native video controls when embedding mp4 files with the video tag, you could argue that could be done just fine with html and javascript instead.

> video needed 3rd party plugins to even run. Video still managed to attract a sizeable user based before that.

Of course video attracts lots of users, that one of the main use of internet for many. Besides Netflix and similar streaming, looking at short clips on Facebook and Reddit is why a lot of users open their browser in the first place. Should everything that's not as popular then be dismissed? Should we not have svg support in browsers? Should video decoders be shipped as webassembly blobs? Should we do like Google docs and render the whole page in a canvas tag?

> Of course I am all in favor of dropping Chrome for Unreal I think the later doesn't call home half as much.

Unreal uses Chromium Embedded Framework, so all you need to browse the web is the Unreal Engine and a build environment, and you can make your own web client. No need for extra browsers.

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

#107

Post by soylentgraham »

dangerface wrote: post #68

I think apple should just fix their webgl implementation. They seem to be missing a fundamental feature of the web it's interactive. They have an interactive attribute for the tag but no description of what this means? What does it mean to interact with a 3d model? Can 3d model interaction be accurately defined in a single attribute? Why not just use javascript for that logic? The whole point of having multi media li…

Its a few lines of code... for a coder, and even then, its 100 lines of setup, shaders, model loading.

Vs a single tag to embed a model. For a non-coder. You dont have to know how to encode/decode videos to add video to a page.

Im surprised it's taken this long. (Whether it'll turn out good, not sure, but it will definitely be adopted, and fast)

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

#108

Post by [deleted] »

tehbeard wrote: post #83
dangerface wrote: post #68

I think apple should just fix their webgl implementation. They seem to be missing a fundamental feature of the web it's interactive. They have an interactive attribute for the tag but no description of what this means? What does it mean to interact with a 3d model? Can 3d model interaction be accurately defined in a single attribute? Why not just use javascript for that logic? The whole point of having multi media li…

> I think apple should just fix their webgl implementation. They can't even make a key-value storage that doesn't break every other release, you expect them to get something involving complex math to work?

[deleted]

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

#109

Post by vez- »

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...

Check out "WebXR"

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

#110

Post by crazygringo »

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.

> Nobody uses the native input elements

What are you talking about? The vast majority of sites use native input elements.

The percentages are going to be different, though, depending on whether you're talking about text boxes, dropdowns, or date pickers. (After all, Safari only introduced native support for date pickers this past April, according to MDN's compatibility table [1].)

[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/in...

Post reply on HN