Rik Cabanier

> I suppose in part it depends what process the model data ends up in. If it's more like `` and could/will be entirely process-separated I could imagine a solution...

> In addition to the security concerns, if I'm understanding it right, non-CORS third-party content would make it impossible to polyfill the `` tag since the polyfill script would be...

> > `` is required to be process separated since it renders foreign content and is allowed to interact with browser/OS chrome. > > Not sure what you mean by...

> I don't have a strong opinion on that aspect (I think the inability to polyfill is more important), I guess it would still be possible to partially polyfill ``...

> Response from TAG: [w3ctag/design-reviews#775 (comment)](https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/775#issuecomment-1273587963) It was strange that they insist on CORS but couldn't give a reason (unless I completely missed it). @annevk said it's a bunch of...

> 3D models tend to be large files. If anyone can easily embed models hosted on my domain, I'm likely to incur very real bandwidth costs from that. So personally...

Is that really needed? Authors can already use frameworks to do the same. With a framework they'll also have more control. In addition, if we allow rendering to a canvas,...

> > Authors can already use frameworks to do the same. With a framework they'll also have more control. > > Sure, but the point is not to require a...

I think this only makes sense if you allow controls (like in proposal #43). Otherwise, shouldn't the model be completely under the author's control?

Maybe this can be added in the later level of the spec? Adding system controls might interfere with script that doesn't expect that the user is making changes. Also, afaik...