new model element for display of inline 3D models

[zachernuk]

This PR aims to provide the basic stub for HTMLModelElement, which will be expanded upon based on discussion within the relevant groups in ARIA, CSS etc. It matches discussion in Immersive Web CG, the initial discussion in WHATNOT in #10901. Here is the model explainer, and an explainer demo page.

• At least two implementers are interested (and none opposed):

  • WebKit
  • Samsung Internet
  • Meta Quest Browser

• Tests are written and can be reviewed and commented upon at:

  • Initial Model element tests web-platform-tests/wpt#51667

• Implementation bugs are filed:

  • WebKit: Support is currently only available for Safari/WebKit in visionOS.

• Corresponding HTML AAM & ARIA in HTML issues & PRs:

  • New in-line 3D HTML model element w3c/aria#2508
  • New in-line 3D model element w3c/html-aam#580

• MDN issue is filed:

  • This PR does not specify any actionable information for web authors. We aim to discuss API features in subsequent additions.

• The top of this comment includes a clear commit message to use.

(See WHATWG Working Mode: Changes for more details.)

---

/embedded-content-other.html ( diff )
/index.html ( diff )

[scottaohara]

@zachernuk i made the aria in html issue for you if you want to add it to your OP - w3c/html-aria#551

[domenic]

FYI, we don't accept partial PRs for new elements; we accept fully specified features. It might be better to do this work in your own fork instead of notifying the 706 watchers of the HTML Standard of your draft progress.

[marcoscaceres]

Hi @domenic, we would like to build it up incrementally here. Sorry for the noise. Folks are free to unsubscribe to this PR if it's noisy and not interested in this topic.

We will try to minimize noise by sending more or less complete things as we go. But we are looking to build consensus on the attributes incrementally, as adding a new element is going to be massive PR and we don't want to lose folks along the way.

[domenic]

Sorry, please build up incrementally in a separate repository. This isn't a good match for the WHATWG working mode.

[marcoscaceres]

Sure, as you have admin rights, can you create us a /model-element fork of HTML under the WHATWG organization? We can keep building it there and eventually send it back here. That's a good solution as we can file our own issues there.

[domenic]

We don't generally host non-standards under WHATWG space, although there are some very old examples in the past (https://idea.whatwg.org/). Usually people use an incubation body such as a W3C community group to host such repositories.

[marcoscaceres]

Ok, we should reopen the pull request till we figure out a solution. We moved it here as we were done incubating (in the Immersive Web CG for 2+ years) and wanted to begin formal standardization with the HTML community.

[domenic]

If you're done incubating, then you should have a full spec, right? Not just the stub in this PR? If you're ready to submit the full spec then indeed we can reopen.

[marcoscaceres]

No, totally not. Same with most incubation. It’s “good enough” to get interest to turn the thing into a real spec™️. It wouldn’t make sense to bash out a whole thing. That’s what actual standardization is for.

[domenic]

OK! Please come back when you have a real spec ready to submit as a PR. Until that time it's not appropriate to use the WHATWG repositories for developing your drafts.

(You can see this model used in many other cases, listed in https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#ipr .)

[marcoscaceres]

We are at Stage 2 of the WHATWG process. We are just transferring this over https://immersive-web.github.io/model-element/

I think you might be missing a bunch of background here. This is something implemented in WebKit with multiple implementer interest.

We would like to continue developing the spec in our own fashion. Please go read our (WHATWG) code of conduct around creating a welcoming environment for new contributors.

[domenic]

I'm sorry that you haven't found this environment welcoming! I'll try to do better.

I am very aware of that background.

I'm trying to make something more clear in my role as the HTML Standard workstream editor. It is not appropriate to use WHATWG repositories, and certainly not the HTML Standard repository, as a place to develop in-progress specifications. We accept pull requests for full specifications. When you have one, we'll be happy to welcome such a pull request! But until then, I'd ask you to be more respectful of our community norms around how WHATWG repositories are used, and to stop insisting that we give you space here to do in-progress spec development. That is not how we work, and you'll need to find a different place for that.

In other words, you are welcome to develop your spec in your own fashion. But if you want to use WHATWG resources, you'll need to do it in the WHATWG fashion, which is to wait until you have a full specification ready for editor review before you take up the editor's bandwidth with a pull request.

Typically, such specifications are developed in community groups. I've given you many examples of that being done in the past. I'd like to understand better why that model, which we've used successfully for many features (including staged features), does not work for you.

[marcoscaceres]

The examples you gave are mostly things you’ve edited/incubated, so of course they are going to fit your incubation ideal. That’s works for you, sure, but you cannot expect the same bar for us.

There’s lots of different ways of doing a specification. This seems needless inflexible and extremely unwelcoming under the guise of “well, that’s just how we (I) do things”.

[marcoscaceres]

@domenic, we'd like to put this proposal explicitly on the Stages track.

Stage 0 says:

"An explainer describing the problem to be solved, including sketching use cases and scenarios. This explainer can exist anywhere, including in a GitHub issue or a personal repository."

That's linked at the top of the PR.

Let's move the discussion to #10901. Once we meet the criteria for Stage 1 we can reopen this.

[domenic]

From what I understand you're already on the stages track, and in stage 2! A pull request is appropriate during stage 3, once you meet the entrance criteria of "complete specification text".