On 1/28/12 12:15 PM, William Stein wrote:
> These two statements taken together are concerning. We don't want to
penalize the performance for the majority of people (i.e., those with
not up-to-date browsers or computers, but can run java).
>
Sorry to trouble you, but I think it is time to move past jmol. We
could keep jmol as an option indefinitely... but i do not think it
should be the default for 3d. It is not robust enough, and it is very,
very frusratingly non-interactive: despite many attempts i have never
seen a compelling demo of genuine sage <----> jmol interaction.
Three.js will make this possible; it will make it easier for prople take
3d images from sage and put them in their own web pages (much more
lightweight), supports ios and android -- which is *hugely important* - etc.
> But testing out three.js certainly sounds like a great idea, and at
least providing it as an option!
>
I plan to seriously "concern you".
All I'm saying is that we should test it to make sure it is better and
as widely supported as we need first before making deciding to make it
the default.
But the first step in either case is an implementation...
Jason
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
