131–140 of 221 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, we don't want WebGL anymore, we want WebGPU now =P
Any game/3D developers here be interested in WebGPU/WebAssembly support for Unreal Engine 5? Along with an asynchronous asset loading system, for dynamic fetching of assets at runtime.
That scene that says "Copyright ©Meta" is actually a CC-BY scene from Amazon Lumberyard.[1] I'm not sure rendering it entitles you to slap your own copyright notice on it while disrespecting the CC-BY. Further, the interface shown is just plain ImGui. That'd be as if I made an image viewer using off-the-shelf parts, displayed some other artist's work in it, then pretended I own the copyright to what my software now d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm hoping we see a move to allow the rendering of the webpage to be entirely up to the users. Just provide the data, and let me decide how I want to interact with it. But that would ruin SEO and Ads, so we're gonna get in a buncha legal battles about web scrapers instead.
“Reader Mode” is a successful example. I’m actually shocked it exists because of how it impedes the things you mention.
https://github.com/mozilla/readability/blob/main/Readability...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it kind of a compromise then to "tag" HTML with classes for CSS? CSS doing the "rendering," like laying out mobile-responsive versus desktop. I wonder how we would separate out explicit class names from HTML, unless the tags themselves are . (Micro frontends & web components?) Then it sort of works out nicely, I think.
HTML is the semantics, CSS is the styling, but you need both. Which is why browsers come with default CSS (which you can unset) for everything. You get the element tag to say "what it is", and you get the CSS classes to say "what visual rules to apply".
> HTML is the semantics ... the element tag to say "what it is"
Maybe this is best framed as a perspective thing.
"Semantic HTML" is about HTML authors using HTML elements in a way that is consistent with the definitions laid out in the specs. These definitions try to specify element semantics because user agents want to be able to do less-dumb things (things that don't work as well if HTML authors are constantly abusing tags for some presentational effect even though the semantics are weird or wrong).
The main consequence of this is that tag semantics (from the UA's perspective) won't always square with what the author assumes it means unless they go study the spec. For example, it's probably not hard to go find cases where the tag is used for the obvious thing from the author's perspective: marking up addresses. The spec, however, explicitly contradicts this surface-level reading: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/sections.html#the-add... (i.e., it can be "correct" for pages to contain a mix of addresses that do and don't have the address tag.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HTML is the semantics, CSS is the styling, but you need both. Which is why browsers come with default CSS (which you can unset) for everything. You get the element tag to say "what it is", and you get the CSS classes to say "what visual rules to apply".
This is mostly true, but the asterisks cause a little chaos. > HTML is the semantics ... the element tag to say "what it is" Maybe this is best framed as a perspective thing. "Semantic HTML" is about HTML authors using HTML elements in a way that is consistent with the definitions laid out in the specs. These definitions try to specify element semantics because user agents want to be able to do less-dumb things (thin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Reader Mode” is a successful example. I’m actually shocked it exists because of how it impedes the things you mention.
But reader mode is mostly bunch of heuristics with tons of ad-hoc special cases and hacks instead of relying documents to be well-structured. So in many ways it is the opposite of successful example. https://github.com/mozilla/readability/blob/main/Readability...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The textures are ok, but the lighting is super flat. People are used to games making at least some attempt at global illumination, whether it's prebaked light maps, or faking it with SSAO, or anything to not have surfaces be a totally consistent brightness across the whole thing.
Your rendering API is not going to implement GI for you, and having it in a sample app is kind of misleading, that's not really the point. It's probably a mistake to include that as a sample scene as it creates the impression that it's trying to be a game engine. A few material spheres and test meshes would probably be a better example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But reader mode is mostly bunch of heuristics with tons of ad-hoc special cases and hacks instead of relying documents to be well-structured. So in many ways it is the opposite of successful example. https://github.com/mozilla/readability/blob/main/Readability...
Oh true. Which kind of demonstrates the penalty for abusing HTML so much that it’s no-longer semantically reliable.
That scene that says "Copyright ©Meta" is actually a CC-BY scene from Amazon Lumberyard.[1] I'm not sure rendering it entitles you to slap your own copyright notice on it while disrespecting the CC-BY. Further, the interface shown is just plain ImGui. That'd be as if I made an image viewer using off-the-shelf parts, displayed some other artist's work in it, then pretended I own the copyright to what my software now d…
A rendering of a scene definitely is a work of its own has its own copyright, which is held by Meta. The scene is also attributed in the github repo license[1]. So the only problem here is that the Khronos post is missing the attribution.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel....
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_and_...