Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

glTF 1.1 draft #784

Closed
wants to merge 221 commits into from
Closed

glTF 1.1 draft #784

wants to merge 221 commits into from

Conversation

lexaknyazev
Copy link
Member

@lexaknyazev lexaknyazev commented Nov 30, 2016


This PR consists of

  • rewritten git history of 1.0.1 branch with changed paths to specification/1.1 directory;
  • updated JSON snippets inside README.md - now each of them is a correct JSON;
  • fixes for typos throughout spec, schemas, and examples;
  • JSON schemas are updated to v4;
  • all recent updates from master branch.

Specification TODOs

Implementation TODOs

Other TODOs

  • sample models for glTF 1.1
  • Close issues labeled 1.1, all of which should also be labeled resolved

pjcozzi added 30 commits June 1, 2016 09:48
Clarify attribute semantic names in spec
Clarify attribute semantic names in spec
Clarify that parameter.node does not allow some semantics
Clarify that parameter.node does not allow some semantics
Remove unused parts of the Default Material example in Appendix A
Remove unused parts of the Default Material example in Appendix A
@pjcozzi
Copy link
Member

pjcozzi commented Nov 30, 2016

I don't know if there is an easier way to do this with GitHub given the history changes, but copying and pasting the 1.0 and 1.1 spec into https://www.diffchecker.com/diff has worked really well for me.

@lexaknyazev
Copy link
Member Author

Is there anything else we should create a tasklist for that needs to be done before merging this?

Updated top message with TODO. I'd merge it anyway to bring everyone's attention to updated spec (we can state on the main repo page that it's a draft).

Is the validation completely in-sync with the spec?

Command-line version - yes; web is a bit outdated, I'll rebuild it soon. Also we need to finish those two open spec issues.

@pjcozzi
Copy link
Member

pjcozzi commented Nov 30, 2016

I'd merge it anyway to bring everyone's attention to updated spec (we can state on the main repo page that it's a draft).

We can discuss today, but I would rather keep master stable and let users refer to this branch while we get a few implementations together.

@pjcozzi pjcozzi mentioned this pull request Nov 30, 2016
23 tasks
@pjcozzi
Copy link
Member

pjcozzi commented Nov 30, 2016

@lexaknyazev is COLLADA2GLTF updated for glTF 1.1?

@lexaknyazev
Copy link
Member Author

@lexaknyazev is COLLADA2GLTF updated for glTF 1.1?

KhronosGroup/COLLADA2GLTF#3

@pjcozzi
Copy link
Member

pjcozzi commented Nov 30, 2016

@lexaknyazev is COLLADA2GLTF updated for glTF 1.1?
KhronosGroup/COLLADA2GLTF#3

Added to tasklist.

#### Orthographic projection
<p><img src="figures/ortho.png" /></p>
where
- `r` equals `camera.orhographic.xmag`;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is a typo. Shouldn't this be orthographic?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure. Fixed with lexaknyazev@3604243.

@pjcozzi pjcozzi mentioned this pull request Jan 17, 2017
5 tasks
@xelatihy
Copy link
Contributor

Is the changes to use top level arrays as opposed to dictionary already being implemented in the draft spec?

@pjcozzi
Copy link
Member

pjcozzi commented Jan 18, 2017

The draft spec is not updated yet for the object to array changes.

@lexaknyazev
Copy link
Member Author

@pjcozzi
Please, review 2113534.

@pjcozzi
Copy link
Member

pjcozzi commented Jan 25, 2017

@pjcozzi
Please, review 2113534.

Looks good, except this is vague and maybe misleading:

While some implementations could handle misaligned data, not following this recommendation may lead to extra data processing, performance degradation, and/or inability to initialize attributes pipeline.

Perhaps remove it.

@lexaknyazev
Copy link
Member Author

Looks good, except this is vague and maybe misleading...

The point was that, depending on driver / API misaligned data could be rendered (because driver will fix that).

@pjcozzi
Copy link
Member

pjcozzi commented Jan 25, 2017

OK, let's be more precise or remove it.

@lexaknyazev lexaknyazev mentioned this pull request Feb 2, 2017
17 tasks
@lexaknyazev
Copy link
Member Author

Continues in #826.

@lexaknyazev lexaknyazev closed this Feb 2, 2017
@lexaknyazev lexaknyazev deleted the master-test branch February 23, 2017 13:33
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants