221–230 of 241 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can also just render a complete OS in a canvas using wasm. Heck, why use the browser at all, just let them download a custom binary... You see where this is going right?
Mistake was made when adding Javascript.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mistake was made when adding Javascript.
So true. I'd be curious about developing modern web standards without JavaScript. I'm aware of gopher/gemini but somehow i like the semantic aspects of the web.
The semantic web is dead since invention.
It makes no difference that you now call some boxes with some new names as those boxes get custom styling and behavior anyway. There is no semantics (no meaning) behind the names.
Even there are proposals how to use elements "semantically correct" nothing enforces it. So it's useless in the big picture. You can't rely on any semantic meaning. As a trivial example, everybody is free to put a h1 below a h6. It will "work"… Because there is just no semantic meaning to those names!
Things like Gemini are interesting as they show a route to tech that separates again documents and applications working with documents. Gemini tries to get the document part right I think.
Only in a model where you don't strive for pixel perfection and customizable behaviors for every piece of rendered content something like semantic meaning of those peaces could arise: There would need to be some agreed meaning because the client would be in charge of rendering and bringing everything to live. But this model is not the web. Not any more…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
FYI, browsers have been separating out the cache for each website for a long time, so you will have to re-download that implementation from the CDN for each website that uses it.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/decentraleyes...
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…
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…
We have a video tag, so why not? https://www.w3schools.com/html/html5_video.asp
And it is. It is another order of magnitude harder than the complexity step from images to video.
As another comment noted:
""" A model without animation is an image.
A model with animation but without interaction is a video. """
So interaction seems like the next step.
But the solution is pretty much = embed game engine in browser. Now the question has to be, which game engine? What features should it have? Sandboxing? Permissions? How will Apples game engine compare to Google/Microsoft/Firefox. How can 3D media possibly be expected to perform the same on all of them?
Also, 3D engine in the browser? That will influence the market for games. Epic should be paying attention as this is a direct shot across their bow.
So, it is hard technically. It is hard for politicommercial reasons. And we haven't touched on privacy/data collection and how that might look.
Is that a reason not to start? No. But when there are already many solutions covering many use cases already there will be arguments over when we should bother.
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…
Instead of spending time on the new vague proposal, maybe Apple should spend time supporting existing web standards like WebGL 2.0 by default (instead of hidden flags).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?