How is this different from WebGL?
Same way html canvas + javascript is different from the img tag, I suppose
Apple proposes adding "model" element to HTML that displays 3D content
41–50 of 241 posts
Re: Apple proposes adding "model" element to HTML that displays 3D content
#42We all don't like it but we are kinda inching towards a `Flash Player` in Browsers.
We already have that for ages now with canvas and webgl.
Re: Apple proposes adding "model" element to HTML that displays 3D content
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, both VRML and Web3D do exist.
Not used Web3D but VRML is a dead language. Which is a pity because VRML was extremely fun to code in. Sadly it was a victim of being release too early (even VRML2 was out before most people 3D accelerators).
VRML is not so much dead as subsumed by X3D, and any newly-proposed standard for 3D models on the Web should at least have feature parity with that.
Re: Apple proposes adding "model" element to HTML that displays 3D content
#44How is this different from WebGL?
No JavaScript
Re: Apple proposes adding "model" element to HTML that displays 3D content
#45If this gets accepted into webkit, which is now nearly synonymous with "HTML", would it be a huge porting effort to get this working with Firefox, the only other HTML implementation I can think of? (I understand that other webkit forks could have this code easily applied.)
> If this gets accepted into webkit, which is now nearly synonymous with "HTML"
It's not synonymous with HTML. Chrome's browser engine is now unfortunately synonymous with "the web" in general. And, while it's derived from WebKit, it's diverged from it too far, and bears a different name, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_(browser_engine)
Re: Apple proposes adding "model" element to HTML that displays 3D content
#46I 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.
At least they could use a proper name instead of the generic "model", something like "object3d".
Re: Apple proposes adding "model" element to HTML that displays 3D content
#47This functionality resembles Adobe Flash
Re: Apple proposes adding "model" element to HTML that displays 3D content
#48> 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…
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?
Isn't everything on Netflix ripped as soon as it is available? What is the DRM doing? Compliance?
Re: Apple proposes adding "model" element to HTML that displays 3D content
#49I 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.
[deleted]
Re: Apple proposes adding "model" element to HTML that displays 3D content
#50Based 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 shoe company wanting to have a model of their sneakers in their shop.
Sure we've got canvas, and WebGL, and WebGPU, and libraries like three.js, which work. But wow you gotta get a lot of JS slapped together to just get something rendering. E.g. I wonder how long transit spent getting a truck rendering on this page. https://panic.com/transmit/
The other challenge of doing everything yourself is that code is stuck in time. It's going to get very minimal benefits from browsers and devices getting better over time, it won't get native UI changes - in 5 years it'll look very dated, if it's still accessible.
A model element makes a lot of sense to me.