*Dan
Ingalls*<mailto:lively-kernel%40hpi.uni-potsdam.de?Subject=%5Blively-kernel%5D%20New%20Release%20coming%20-%20Alpha%20testers%20welcome&In-Reply-To=>/,
back in Jul 11, 2011/, wrote:
We have refactored the rendering architecture so that it can equally
easily support not only SVG and Canvas, but also standard HTML and
CSS.
I've had fun playing around with the sneak peak at Lively 2.0. Seems to
work for me in Chrome. I've enjoyed poking trough the code base, then
went off and read the OMeta/JS paper. A big thank you to all the folks
that make it happen!
What prompted my revisiting lively was that I want to play with
three.js, but I have no interest in messing with HTML/CSS ... I *think*
I can get the .external HTML shape rendering to put a canvas tag on the
page, and then I *think* I can figure out how to get webgl drawing 3d in
the 'viewport'. *Then* I can connect sample webgl/three.js programs
hooked up to some simple GUI written in Lively (My very first
experiment will be -- what do these camera controls do?). Thats my
rough plan.
So my question is: How committed to the HTML/CSS rendering is the
project? Can't have canvas open with both a 2d context and a 3d context
(though if you've messed with the Secondlife client as much as I have it
is an obvious usecase.)
Of the three options for rendering, which has the best performance
currently: svg, canvas, html/css?
Jay
_______________________________________________
lively-kernel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/listinfo/lively-kernel
