WebGL Standard To Bring 3D Acceleration To Browsers? 239
Several sources are reporting that while native audio/video support has been dropped from the HTML 5 spec, the Khronos Group has released a few details about their up and coming WebGL 3D acceleration standard. "The general principle behind WebGL is to offer a JavaScript binding to the group's OpenGL ES 2.0 system, allowing code run within the browser to access the graphics hardware directly in the same way as a standalone application can. As the technology would rely solely on JavaScript to do the heavy lifting, no browser plugin would be required — and it would be compatible with any browser which supports the scripting language alongside the HTML 5 'Canvas' element."
i for one ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The funny part is that all those flash-only marketing pages could already have OGL access if anyone wanted it. Theres nothing stopping Flash version 152123112.51 or whatever they are up to this week from supporting OpenGL if anyone actually wanted it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Flashblock is horribly inadequate. I'd prefer a solution that didn't involve "yes, I've wasted your bandwidth and other resources loading this flash for you- OH CRAP WAIT, IT'S FLASH! I'll tell it to go away now..."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Could someone explain... (Score:2, Interesting)
... who the Khronos Group is, exactly? The linked article refers to them as 'a consortium', but I've never heard of them.
Basically I'm wondering if this is any different than my friend Jim announcing a web standard.
The Khronos Group (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.khronos.org/ [khronos.org]
Re:Could someone explain... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yepp we again then can expect another standard which probably every browser vendor will integrate except microsoft which once it is standardized will roll its own web d3d...
Been there done that, read up about SVG, CSS 2.0, transparent PNGs, Flash/Silverlight, Corba, OpenGL etc...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to Slashdot and the Internet! (He must be new here, since he doesn't know about Google)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks to all for the replies and Google proxy searches. I guess I should have been more direct, though, and simply said:
Shouldn't Slashdot submitters or editors provide an explanatory link when referencing a group/individual when it's probable a large number of readers won't have a priori knowledge of the group/individual? Alternatively, if I'm going to have to do some background research anyway - then a submission like this could be distilled down to the single sentence "The Khronos Group did something in
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Simple answer, yes, the editors should do that. But, in this case, no such thing has happened. The Khronos group is an organisation that slashdotters almost all know as well as the ISO or IEEE.
Re: (Score:2)
You REALLY must be new here.
Javascript and direct hardware access. (Score:5, Funny)
What's next, a way to make web browsers faster by making /dev/kmem remotely writable?
Re:Javascript and direct hardware access. (Score:4, Interesting)
WebGL is based on OpenGL ES and together with javascript bindings its a really neat way of expand the usage of a browser without the need for a multitude of different plugins (each coming with their problems and security issues). Standards is good for you, and to make certain applications we will need 3D directly in the browser (I'm not just thinking geek stuff here, lots of stuff like you need a standalone program for today could run directly in the browser, planing your home, drag around those furnitures and when your happy, just click order !).
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't such a bad idea, to be honest. OpenGL shaders can be made using almost any language in existence, including(but not limited to) C/C++, Java, Python, Ruby, etc. etc.
I can see more problems with letting a website block keyboard presses and mouse buttons, and that doesn't seem to be hugely abused in Firefox.
I do hope there's some sort of filtering for malicious content. Up until now OpenGL has been run from "trusted" programs that already have full access to your computer. I remember a while back wh
Re:Javascript and direct hardware access. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Next, a way for HTML emails to crack your encryption using your GPU.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it already is there to some degree what do you think is the dom node and images etc... they all have hooks somewhere into the hardware.
The way I see it javascript will only be used for scripting on the 3d scenegraph and 3d elements themselves. There is no more hardware connectivity than what already is given with the javascript/dom connectivity.
Port 80 (Score:2, Insightful)
Does EVERYTHING need to be reinvented (poorly) on port 80? Really!!!???
Re:Port 80 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
For the love of god replace javascript (Score:3, Interesting)
Is anyone at all working on something that is not as loosy-goosy and hokey as javascript for client-side computing?
I've used Adobe ActionScript (stricter variant of JavaScript) and it is getting a little better, but why do we think "oh, it's the client-side. Let's go back to (essentially) Basic for programming."
(Still moping I didn't get my Applets.)
(Ok, Java is a bit too ugly (accessor hell)
but a language with a little rigidity, checking, and simplicity to it wouldn't hurt, would it?)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:For the love of god replace javascript (Score:5, Insightful)
While JavaScript is not perfect, it is actually a nice little language. It's just that every retard can "program" in it, and then thinks because he wrote a for loop, he is entitled to an opinion about it.
Few people actually know how to program properly in JS. And the only problem is that JS is too forgiving. Just as the rendering engines for (X)HTML and CSS. But that was the original point. And it's not that bad of a point either.
Because simple scripts are way easier than people think. Every person who can play a shooter, puzzle game, or configure some stuff on his computer, can write acceptable scripts. And even total noobs can write bad ones. I think that is a nice thing.
And this is why you can ignore the (non-pro) masses, ranting about JS.
If it were for me, the scripting interface in browsers would have to support multiple high-level languages anyway: Python, Haskell, Java and Ruby would be those that I'd introduce. But others might want Erlang, Ocaml, and maybe even C++. Why not? If the API is clean, the interpreters work as expected, and everything is sandboxed as it should anyway...
Re: (Score:2)
And the only problem is that JS is too forgiving.
Tool support for debugging still has a way to go. And since weak vs strong typing is a religious war it would be nice to have an alternative for those on the strong typing side.
Re: (Score:2)
Tool support for debugging still has a way to go. And since weak vs strong typing is a religious war it would be nice to have an alternative for those on the strong typing side.
Firebug is an excellent JS debugger!
JS has its types (number, string, etc) and variables are loose. Knowing what those types are and how to use them makes JS a compelling language for a strong-typer like myself.
Re: (Score:2)
While JavaScript is not perfect, it is actually a nice little language.
From a language design POV, it's anything but. The issue with scope of local variables alone - you know, the one when you declare a variable inside a block that's not the topmost in a function - is something worth killing over. The only other language that does it in the same dumbfucked (sorry, but there really aren't any better word to describe this) way is - was - VB6, but VB6 was in a family of itself, so you kinda expected things to be different there, whereas JavaScript pretends to be a C++/Java lookal
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Dont get me wrong I do most of my work with javascript, and I know the inner depths of the language. And as far as I can see the language itself is as powerful as every other dynamic language like ruby or groovy for instance. But the designers missed a few things, which then have to be simulated and sometimes due to having a simulation of those language constructs can cause cross implementation collisions. Those would be easy to fix, introduce real classes and inheritance or simply make a standard on how to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the history of the web, browsers and multiple companies injecting their own funky little APIs and features, I think a strictly-typed, more "structured" language wouldn't have cut it.
...and you're right, a VM based solution like Java clearly didn't work back in the 90s when PCs were too slow to handle it.
Re: (Score:2)
but a language with a little rigidity, checking, and simplicity to it wouldn't hurt, would it?)
nope. lets get a simple C JIT compiler into the browser! It wouldn't have to do everything, just compile function by function as needed. These functions could be called from javascript so you'd have speed and scripting in one small tidy package - its not as if the C runtime is a large library by today's standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Why yes [google.com], yes they are [google.com]. Note that these technologies are targeted precisely at weaknesses of JavaScript whilst retaining the things people like about the web - the security, the lack of installation/uninstallation, speed of download, the flexible rendering engine etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. What can't you trust on the client, specifically?
Also, what you are saying is going against the trend, which is to richer functionality on the client for better interactivity, while getting data and
some heavy-duty processing and identities etc from the server.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The client can't trust the server any more than the server can trust the client. Powerful tools and healthy suspicion is needed on both ends, always has.
Fast enough for web browsing??! (Score:5, Insightful)
Praise be to Moore and his irrefutable law:
We are doomed to use faster and faster Computers and more and more energy, to read pages that might - content wise- just as well run on gopher.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'm going to register the name.
Honestly? (Score:4, Insightful)
I like this. Why not? It can be expected that web browsers use decent security practices, 3D drivers are already doing a fairly good job of providing a stable API via OpenGL, and everything is floating towards web browsers as new deployment platform, also for games and 3D applications. Better have an open 3D standard than a need of all sorts of plugins where everyone comes up with his own half-working solution. This is the indie game developer's wet dream coming true.
Of course, that's the best scenario. How it plays out in practice, we will have to see.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the indie game developer's wet dream coming true.
No, the indie game developer's wet dream coming true would a mass-market PC marketed to be connected to an HDTV. Then they could get away from the dichotomy of "consoles are for sofa multiplayer, PCs are for indie games".
VRML (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody remember how awesome and important VRML was supposed to be? They just forgot to convince users.
What? No way! I was definitely convinced! I distinctly remember running a VRML plugin at one time, and trying one of a very limited number of available example pages for it with some limited measure of success...
If I'd had tools like (today's) Blender back then, and the hardware to back it up, I might have done something with VRML...
Re:VRML - side note (Score:2)
Anybody remember how awesome and important VRML was supposed to be? They just forgot to convince users.
What? No way! I was definitely convinced! I distinctly remember running a VRML plugin at one time, and trying one of a very limited number of available example pages for it with some limited measure of success...
I feel compelled to add, this was a point in time at which streaming audio over the internet was still a big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
I used VRML too - and this wasn't just when streaming audio was a big deal, this was when even having audio WORK was a big deal. I was running shotgun modems last time I used VRML, and it was still fun.
Getting audio AND X11 up? That was talent.
Even windows audio was spotty on some cards.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
VRML is alive and well ... and living in a group called "Kronos". It's every bit as awesome as it ever was.
Re: (Score:2)
They just forgot to convince users.
Well, it's not the endusers that need convincing, but the content producers. The consumers will just use whatever works for them.
Browser = the new runtime environment? (Score:2)
But it still seems like there will always be some sort of proprietary extension that one group will try and control. Businesses will want to set up tollbooths just for the sake of a "guaranteed revenue stream". What this really means is a tax that doesn'
STOP! (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile I am trying to find a way to get Firefox to STOP automatic animation. It used to be easy- don't use Flash and disable animated GIF's. Now with Ajax and Javascript, it is nearly impossible.
* Many people (myself included) can't stand movement on pages while we are trying to read things.
* Some people are using thin clients and animation destroys network bandwidth or overloads the main server.
* Still others are on slower, older computers and animation slows their system to a crawl.
* And many more are on laptops/netbooks and animation pegs the CPU and quickly drains the battery.
IMHO, a well-designed site will never create movement unless the user asks for it (with a mouse-over or click or whatever). But that would be a "in a perfect world" type fantasy.
Please, don't bother replying suggesting "noscript"- it breaks necessary functionality of sites horribly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you mean Adblock Plus... yes, all my machines run that. And it does help tremendously. But these animations are not necessarily ads.
As for time- I have spent lots and lots of time trying... tips appreciated
Re: (Score:2)
Noscript can be tedious, but it's worth the time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please, don't bother replying suggesting "noscript"- it breaks necessary functionality of sites horribly.
That's what the white list is for.
Re: (Score:2)
1) That is a tremendous amount of work (compared to something like Adblock)
2) In a thin client environment, white lists don't work because users don't understand it and/or don't realize what is happening anyway
3) It seems no matter how much you mess with it, it still ends up breaking something you need to make this or that site work
I keep hoping someone will invent some type of intelligent blocking system for animation that understands the typical methods being used and can short-circuit just those elements
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile I am trying to find a way to get Firefox to STOP automatic animation
yep, and when this is a true standard, I've no doubt there will be options to control it better. That'll be far better solution than adblock or other 'all or nothing' (relatively speaking) filtering controls.
Re: (Score:2)
controldescripts [mozdev.org] allows what your asking for (well the disabling ajax and javascript animations, othertools will block flash and esc will stop gifs), unfortunately setting it up was beyond me, but the functionality to restrict the js commands a site has access to is there, so i just use noscript+temporarily allow default domain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That MIGHT work partially OK for people like you or me (with enough effort). But it isn't a solution to roll out to hundreds of users that don't even understand the concept of going directly to a website. They think you have to put a web address into Google, then click on the first link that comes up. I think you know what I mean...
Re: (Score:2)
On my systems, pressing escape does nothing to stop any animations.
http://www.visiosight.com/ [visiosight.com]
http://samples.gaiaware.net/Timer.aspx [gaiaware.net]
http://www.volll.com/ [volll.com]
those are some awfully dry pipes you have there (Score:2)
does anyone believe that at any point the hardware would be the bottleneck?
Exploits for the future (Score:2)
Fast forward a few more years and exploits in OpenGL spilling over into running OpenCL / DirectX? code on the graphics cards. Which by then will be defacto and be running some core OS services.
Boy things are going to get interesting....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That would be cool.
Re: (Score:2)
several sources...are mistaken... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think that aforementioned several sources are confusing dropping Vorbis/Theora as a required codec with dropping audio/video elements from HTML5 altogether. Ironically, if you actually open TFA (don't worry, no need to read it) and click on the link that's formed by the words "dropped from the HTML5 spec", the article which opens is indeed about dropping Vorbis/Theora, and it's on the same website. Looks like they don't read their own articles - just like /.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that aforementioned several sources are confusing dropping Vorbis/Theora as a required codec with dropping audio/video elements from HTML5 altogether.
The two might as well be the same. There is now no video codec that is supported by all browsers, meaning Flash is still the best option for playing videos.
Re: (Score:2)
The two might as well be the same. There is now no video codec that is supported by all browsers
You don't need a single codec - you can specify several sources in video element, and browser will pick the first one it can handle. So you specify H.264 and Theora, and that's enough to cover all of them.
Flash is still the best option simply because IE didn't sign up for HTML5 video. However, for performance reasons, it's still advantageous to use HTML5 where supported, and rely on fallback to Flash when not (video element was specifically designed with that in mind).
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: "Microsoft dropped it"
(if they every really intended to do it - why should they when they've got their own agenda for web video, ie. Silverlight)
I don't see Microsoft jumping on this new bandwagon either. Why should they when Silverlight has 3D? Without support in IE then I don't see anybody using this for anything much.
Please don't (Score:2)
If this is available on all web browsers, that means I won't be able to turn it off; or if I turn it off, I can't access the rest of the web.
Please, don't do this. What's the benefit of turning web browsers into flash players?
Wow! That's exactly what we need! (Score:2)
As xkcd [xkcd.com] already pointed out, developers seem to be out of touch with reality here. How about implementing KMS for a flicker free boot instead? Or heck, what about allowing X applications to sync to vertical retrace? That last one has been in the pipeline for some 20 years, for God's sake!
Video/audio did NOT get dropped (Score:4, Informative)
Their just isn't a recommendation about what codecs should be supported in the spec.
I've got an idea! (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's abandon decades of fast native APIs and move all our applications to a browser where they will be dependent on the fluctuating feature set of the browser wars, will require programming in JavaScript, and won't have a standard GUI framework to use so that we'll have to code our own from scratch every time as if it's MS-DOS all over again. This way, people will have a pointless, non-native middle-man between their operating systems and their apps!
I've wanted nothing more than to program 3D in friggin'
Re:I've got an idea! (Score:5, Interesting)
will require programming in JavaScript
Why is this a bad thing? Or what would you suggest as a better language?
Most people who hate Javascript don't really understand it. I qualify that as "most" because a few people do know enough about it to actually have good reasons for hating it.
won't have a standard GUI framework to use
HTML is more standard than about any other GUI framework, even if less featured.
In fact, something to notice -- most people seem determined to style away the standard GUI elements. Below this message, you'll almost certainly see a "Reply to This" button and a "Parent" button, and unless you've disabled your CSS, they probably look nothing like your standard native buttons.
The issue is that most web designers hate these things, and think they're "ugly". Whether actual users care is up for debate -- they don't seem to have a problem with Google's homepage, for example.
we'll have to code our own from scratch every time as if it's MS-DOS all over again
You mean the MS-DOS, where the network was nearly nonexistent, and applications would largely be written in C or assembly?
I understand your sentiment that the browser feels like a step back, but hyperbole doesn't help your argument.
This way, people will have a pointless, non-native middle-man between their operating systems and their apps!
Better this than Java or C#.
What's more, it's hardly pointless. Or would you rather go back to the days when if you wanted something cool, like the ability to check the weather, receive email, or watch TV, you'd have to download an untrusted (possibly virus/spyware infested) binary .exe, run it on Windows, and hope it doesn't have some weird incompatibility with everything else on your system?
I much prefer the ability to try out pretty much anything I want, in my browser, without having to download/install anything, or uninstall it later. Worst case, I reload the page, or close the tab. Absolute worst case, I have to kill the browser, but no permanent harm.
Oh, and they're portable. I can play with the same apps on Windows, Linux, OS X, an iPhone...
You could argue that the browser isn't the best possible way we could've accomplished that, but those are real advantages it has over the vast majority of desktop apps, especially "fast" ones.
I've wanted nothing more than to program 3D in friggin' JavaScript.
Better than programming 3D in friggin' Flash.
If people are going to insist on taking the Web in this direction, wouldn't you rather it be based on cross-platform open standards?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The very name "JavaScript" confuses uninformed people who assume "Java" and "JavaScript" are the same thing. Despite posting as Anon, I can say I've never had much problem with JavaScript as a standard. (I know, I know. The name is really ECMAscript these days, but who calls it that?)
The other side of using JavaScript is that it was slow -- so the 'interpreted versus native' argument would come back up, like it did back in the days of Visual Basic versus Visual C++. But with the advances made in the last...
Re: (Score:2)
Typically the performance issue in Flash is that designers choose to use compositing at run time so their effects can be dynamic based on user input. Video despite requiring heavy computation to decode is always the same. This makes it easier to optimize and offload to a dedicated processor.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolute worst case, I have to kill the browser, but no permanent harm
I don't think "absolute worst case" means what you think it means.
Re:I've got an idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
I miss VRML.
j/k j/k in all seriousness, the uses for 3D support in a browser is pretty limited I think. I can think of a few corner cases, such as large set data visualization, but for general use, I think it will end up being misapplied everywhere.
I did some web programming in JavaScript years ago when browser compatibility was a serious problem and I hated it. I've heard it has gotten much better now, but I don't do web design anymore so I don't really care.
I find myself in agreement with the GP though that there is a general trend of moving traditional desktop applications to web apps in cases where it makes little sense. Developers are working hard to come up with ways to preserve functionality and use these applications even while disconnected from a network. I think the whole thing is an exercise in futility because there will always be people like me who demand snappy, native applications that are locally stored. For security, privacy, responsiveness and other reasons, I don't see myself changing my mind on this topic any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Displaying Virtual Houses before they are build or sold.
2. Getting an 3d walk in a disco before going out.
3. cool statistics effects?
Anyway,
While applications on the desktop will always have their place, webapps have many advantages as well. they can be used everywhere, on every platform, you have your data stored on a single place that is much easier to backup. Much easier to upgrade. Support knows everybody is viewing the thing, you can outsource the whole thing, and many other motives.
For these reason
Re: (Score:2)
God I hate this argument. THATS WHAT THE OS IS FOR, which no one seems to understand or willing to fix. We just keep adding more buggy layers
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this a bad thing? Or what would you suggest as a better language?
Yes, it's a bad thing and, no, I wouldn't suggest any one better language. Programming is about choosing the right tool for the job. Sometimes that tool might be JavaScript, sometimes it might be a different language.
Most people who hate Javascript don't really understand it. I qualify that as "most" because a few people do know enough about it to actually have good reasons for hating it.
I don't hate JavaScript, although the complete lack of integer support and the bizarre semantics of closures mean that it's a pain to implement and a pain to use. I've written a compiler for a dialect of JavaScript, but decided to break the spec in a few places because it was too ugly (and m
Re:I've got an idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
HTML+Javascript /is/ the standard GUI framework, that's the point.
If you want something to be pixel-perfect, oh no, it may look a bit off.
If you want something to be useful, HTML has been the way to go for at least a decade.
This, like everything else ever, is not a "let's add this so people can do this" thing, but a "people are doing this, let's make it easier/more standardized by writing down what people are doing and recommending that future browsers be sure to support this"
And of course, like everything else ever, most people aren't going to code to the low-level, but will use higher-level libraries since they care more about functionality than "control".
As for "friggin' JavaScript"... what? When I have problems with writing javascript, it's because of IE6 or Firefox-specific bugs, what's your problem with it? Just don't want to share your source code?
Re: (Score:2)
"HTML+Javascript /is/ the standard GUI framework, that's the point."
I've never heard of a kludge described as a standard framework. When HTML was designed, Javascript didn't even exist, so clearly nobody designed a framework.
Re: (Score:2)
You and I have different ideas of 'standard'.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I looked at a demo of this a few weeks ago, and even in the current state and on a OS the technology doesn't really support yet (Mac OS X 10.5) it's plenty fast enough to be useful.
It's not about "speed" (Score:2)
it's about using a tool which is suited to the job. Using Javascript to do 3D graphics is like trying to saw wood with a pair of knitting needles.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, let's all start hammering square pegs into round holes.
Programmers have way too much free time on their hands, the extra workload will be a welcome relief to them.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's square. OpenGL ES has no immediate mode rendering, all rendering is done via arrays of floating point data, and pointers to them. Support for that sort of data storage is non-existent in JavaScript. I'm not even sure you could pretend that strings are binary data (like they do in PHP).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Step 2 is making it impossible for anyone to download anything
And step 3 is pay-per-use of the glorious cloud and all of it's constant revenue stream goodness.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean something like JOGL [java.net] or LWJGL [lwjgl.org]?
Been there, done that, although this is mostly for Java WebStart, not applets.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't this be better to be made as a java library of some form that allows for java applets to have direct access to opengl in browser?
You mean like this [java.net]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't we have both imperative and declarative support for both 2d and 3d web elements, both backed by access to a DOM?
Declarative 2D (SVG) and 3D (VRML/X3D) exist but virtually no one uses them, so the browser developers aren't going to put much effort into declarative graphics. You can always define your own declarative format (JSON3D anyone?) and write a library to display it using WebGL.
Re: (Score:2)
The Kronos group has had it on life support all this time. Now it's called "Collada" but it's still VRML in disguise.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW re: javascript, I find that browsers crash a lot less with it turned off.
Funny. I don't remember the last time I had a browser crash while using a non-beta browser.
Re: (Score:2)
I use Konqueror, which is certainly not beta, and it crashes all the time. Twice in the last hour, in fact.