Resending from the proper address even though Maciej already answered your question. Adam ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adam Barth <abarth@eecs.berkeley.edu> Date: Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 11:39 PM Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit and Khronos Group To: Harry Underwood <raynenamibia@gmail.com> Cc: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>, webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Harry Underwood<raynenamibia@gmail.com> wrote:
So what you're also saying is that the combination of CSS 3D Transforms in Animations with SVG (resulting, I'm assuming, in SVG-transformed animation through CSS styling) does not translate or correlate to what either WebGL or O3D are meant to do, even though O3D and SVG are both retained mode APIs?
Yes. For example, O3D lets you specify a light source and a bump map for objects whereas this API would not. Also O3D gives you access to hardware accelerated pixel shaders.
And you're also saying that it isn't the intention of WebKit's implementation (or Apple's Working Draft) of SVG Transforms (as per http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG-Transforms/ ) to allow for the construction and styling of full scenes and models like those in O3D?
I can't speak for Apple, but that would be quite surprising. If you're interested in this topic, you might be interested in reading about Cg and the O3D shading language: http://developer.nvidia.com/page/cg_main.html http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/docs/shadinglanguage.html
The draft has a combination of CSS transitions, CSS Animations and CSS 3D to plug into SVG, so it would seem like any composition using SVG Transforms could accomplish mostly with CSS what O3D accomplishes with JavaScript (unless I'm not reading it correctly).
There's a lot more to 3D rendering than transitions, animations, and transforms. In particular, 3D is largely about framing your drawing in a way that your graphics hardware can be blazingly fast. That's way most modern 3D drawing APIs use something akin to glDrawElements: http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/docs/reference/classo3d_1_1_draw_element.htm... This API is usually the fastest possible way to send geometry information from main memory to the GPU. Adam
Thanks very much for the explanations, everyone. Sorry about the long chain of questions, but I wanted to form a FAQ-type basis for future questions regarding the difference between what Apple and WebKit are doing with SVG+CSS and what Google and Khronos Group are doing with O3D vs. WebGL, at least because a number (a minority, most likely) of people are highly interested in the post-VRML "3D Web" nowadays. Thanks, Harry On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Adam Barth <abarth@webkit.org> wrote:
Resending from the proper address even though Maciej already answered your question.
Adam
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adam Barth <abarth@eecs.berkeley.edu> Date: Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 11:39 PM Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit and Khronos Group To: Harry Underwood <raynenamibia@gmail.com> Cc: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>, webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Harry Underwood<raynenamibia@gmail.com> wrote:
So what you're also saying is that the combination of CSS 3D Transforms in Animations with SVG (resulting, I'm assuming, in SVG-transformed animation through CSS styling) does not translate or correlate to what either WebGL or O3D are meant to do, even though O3D and SVG are both retained mode APIs?
Yes. For example, O3D lets you specify a light source and a bump map for objects whereas this API would not. Also O3D gives you access to hardware accelerated pixel shaders.
And you're also saying that it isn't the intention of WebKit's implementation (or Apple's Working Draft) of SVG Transforms (as per http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG-Transforms/ ) to allow for the construction and styling of full scenes and models like those in O3D?
I can't speak for Apple, but that would be quite surprising. If you're interested in this topic, you might be interested in reading about Cg and the O3D shading language:
http://developer.nvidia.com/page/cg_main.html http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/docs/shadinglanguage.html
The draft has a combination of CSS transitions, CSS Animations and CSS 3D to plug into SVG, so it would seem like any composition using SVG Transforms could accomplish mostly with CSS what O3D accomplishes with JavaScript (unless I'm not reading it correctly).
There's a lot more to 3D rendering than transitions, animations, and transforms. In particular, 3D is largely about framing your drawing in a way that your graphics hardware can be blazingly fast. That's way most modern 3D drawing APIs use something akin to glDrawElements:
http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/docs/reference/classo3d_1_1_draw_element.htm...
This API is usually the fastest possible way to send geometry information from main memory to the GPU.
Adam _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
On Aug 8, 2009, at 11:58 PM, Harry Underwood wrote:
Thanks very much for the explanations, everyone. Sorry about the long chain of questions, but I wanted to form a FAQ-type basis for future questions regarding the difference between what Apple and WebKit are doing with SVG+CSS and what Google and Khronos Group are doing with O3D vs. WebGL,
Even that way of framing it sounds potentially inaccurate. Some corrections: - Neither Apple nor WebKit are specifically trying to do something with SVG+CSS. We do support SVG, and we have some CSS extensions, but we're not especially pushing this combination. - We're hoping others adopt our 3D CSS transforms, just as our 2D CSS transforms and CSS transitions have gotten interest from Mozilla and others. - Apple, along with Google, Mozilla, Khronos Group and others, is actively supporting WebGL. - O3D is, at least for now, a Google-only technology. - None of these technologies serve quite the same purpose.
at least because a number (a minority, most likely) of people are highly interested in the post-VRML "3D Web" nowadays.
There's definitely a lot of people interested in 3D. It would be good to collect the information about this. - Maciej
Thanks, Harry
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Adam Barth <abarth@webkit.org> wrote: Resending from the proper address even though Maciej already answered your question.
Adam
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adam Barth <abarth@eecs.berkeley.edu> Date: Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 11:39 PM Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit and Khronos Group To: Harry Underwood <raynenamibia@gmail.com> Cc: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>, webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Harry Underwood<raynenamibia@gmail.com
wrote: So what you're also saying is that the combination of CSS 3D Transforms in Animations with SVG (resulting, I'm assuming, in SVG-transformed animation through CSS styling) does not translate or correlate to what either WebGL or O3D are meant to do, even though O3D and SVG are both retained mode APIs?
Yes. For example, O3D lets you specify a light source and a bump map for objects whereas this API would not. Also O3D gives you access to hardware accelerated pixel shaders.
And you're also saying that it isn't the intention of WebKit's implementation (or Apple's Working Draft) of SVG Transforms (as per http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG-Transforms/ ) to allow for the construction and styling of full scenes and models like those in O3D?
I can't speak for Apple, but that would be quite surprising. If you're interested in this topic, you might be interested in reading about Cg and the O3D shading language:
http://developer.nvidia.com/page/cg_main.html http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/docs/shadinglanguage.html
The draft has a combination of CSS transitions, CSS Animations and CSS 3D to plug into SVG, so it would seem like any composition using SVG Transforms could accomplish mostly with CSS what O3D accomplishes with JavaScript (unless I'm not reading it correctly).
There's a lot more to 3D rendering than transitions, animations, and transforms. In particular, 3D is largely about framing your drawing in a way that your graphics hardware can be blazingly fast. That's way most modern 3D drawing APIs use something akin to glDrawElements:
http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/docs/reference/classo3d_1_1_draw_element.htm...
This API is usually the fastest possible way to send geometry information from main memory to the GPU.
Adam _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
On Aug 8, 2009, at 11:58 PM, Harry Underwood wrote:
Thanks very much for the explanations, everyone. Sorry about the long chain of questions, but I wanted to form a FAQ-type basis for future questions regarding the difference between what Apple and WebKit are doing with SVG+CSS and what Google and Khronos Group are doing with O3D vs. WebGL,
Even that way of framing it sounds potentially inaccurate. Some corrections:
- Neither Apple nor WebKit are specifically trying to do something with SVG+CSS. We do support SVG, and we have some CSS extensions, but we're not especially pushing this combination.
- We're hoping others adopt our 3D CSS transforms, just as our 2D CSS transforms and CSS transitions have gotten interest from Mozilla and others.
- Apple, along with Google, Mozilla, Khronos Group and others, is actively supporting WebGL.
- O3D is, at least for now, a Google-only technology.
I'm not on the O3D team, but it's my understanding that they're trying to get O3D (or some sort of retained mode 3D API) on a standards track....so hopefully it won't be "Google-only" for much longer. :-) Also note that O3D is open source software ( http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/o3d/) and is available as a plugin for many browsers (not sure which ones specifically, though). So maybe "plugin-only" is a better way to describe it at the moment?
- None of these technologies serve quite the same purpose.
at least because a number (a minority, most likely) of people are highly interested in the post-VRML "3D Web" nowadays.
There's definitely a lot of people interested in 3D. It would be good to collect the information about this.
I think Maciej summed things up very precisely (besides my one nit of a comment). J
participants (4)
-
Adam Barth
-
Harry Underwood
-
Jeremy Orlow
-
Maciej Stachowiak