Model: qwen/qwq-32b
Timestamp: 2025-11-03T20:14:30.314221Z
Prompt: Please implement an html + js + css only project stored on a single html file that implements a 3d cube rotating. If you want you can add external dependencies as long as they are only included from cdns. 

================================================================================
RESPONSE:
================================================================================

<think>

Okay, let's see. The user wants a 3D rotating cube using only HTML, CSS, and JavaScript in a single file. They mentioned that external dependencies from CDNs are okay if needed.

First, I need to think about how to structure the HTML. The basic setup would be a canvas element since rendering 3D graphics in the browser typically uses WebGL, which is done through the <canvas> tag. Alternatively, maybe using CSS 3D transforms would be simpler without needing a canvas? Hmm.

Wait, the user said "pure" HTML + JS + CSS. Maybe using CSS3D transforms is better because it doesn't require any external libraries like Three.js unless they allow CDNs. Wait, but if I can do it with CSS transforms and some JavaScript to animate, that might be better. Let me think.

Alternatively, using Three.js from a CDN could make this easier for 3D stuff. Since the cube rotating is common in Three.js examples, that might be a good approach even with external dependencies. The user said "if you want" so including Three.js via CDN is acceptable.

So steps I need to take:

1. Include the necessary libraries in the header via CDN. Three.js would be needed for 3D rendering.

2. Create a canvas element where the cube will be rendered.

3. Write JavaScript using Three.js to create a scene, camera, renderer, cube geometry and material.

4. Animate the cube rotation using requestAnimationFrame or a render loop that updates each frame.

Wait, but maybe I can use pure CSS. Let me think again. If using CSS transform functions like perspective, rotate3d etc., maybe it can be done without JavaScript. But then animating the rotation over time would require CSS animations, but perhaps with some JS to update styles.

Hmm. Let me check possibilities:

Using pure CSS: You can rotate a cube by applying transitions and transforms, but to make it continuously rotate without user interaction, you might need CSS keyframe animations. That could work for a simple rotating cube.

Let me outline both approaches:

Approach 1 (Three.js):

Pros: More control over complex 3D transformations, easy to get a rotating cube with proper depth and lighting if desired.

Cons: Requires including Three.js via CDN, which adds to file size but is manageable.

Approach 2 (CSS transforms):

Pros: No external dependencies, simpler code if the cube is a simple rotating block.

Cons: Might be limited in realism and easier to animate continuously with CSS keyframes but less control over the 3D environment.

The user said "pure" HTML, JS, CSS but allowed external cdns. Since Three.js is a common CDN, maybe that's better for an impressive cube.

Alternatively, if I go with CSS:

The cube can be made using div elements arranged in a cube structure. Each face as a child element, positioned with transforms.

To rotate it 3d:

.parent {
   perspective: 1000px;
}

Then individual faces rotated into place with transform-style: preserve-3d.

The rotation can be handled via keyframes to spin the cube.

Let me consider the CSS approach first as it might require less code, but with limited animation options.

Wait, but let's try to think through the CSS solution step by step:

Structuring the HTML:

A container div with a class like 'cube-container'.

Inside, each face of the cube as child elements (divs). Since a cube has 6 faces. Maybe using absolute positioning.

Alternatively, there's a common CSS method to create a cube by rotating planes. Let me think of structure.

Actually, typical approach for CSS cubes involves having each face as a child with specific rotations and positioned in 3D space using translateZ.

For example:

<div class="cube">
   <div class="face front">front</div>
   <div class="face back"></div>
   <!-- and so on for left, right, top, bottom -->
</div>

The CSS would set the cube's transform-style: preserve-3d; and each face is placed in their respective positions using rotateX/Y and translateZ.

Then, to animate rotation, add a CSS animation that rotates the cube container with keyframes.

Alternatively:

The .cube class would have transform: rotateX(...) and rotateY varying over time in keyframes.

But controlling all the faces' orientation correctly would need precise initial positions.

This might be a bit involved, but doable. Let me consider code:

The container needs to have perspective so that the 3D is visible.

So, perhaps:

.cube-container {
   perspective: 1000px;
}

.cube {
   position: relative;
   width: 200px;
   height: 200px;
   transform-style: preserve-3d;
   animation: rotate 5s infinite linear;
}

@keyframes rotate {
   from { transform: rotateY(0deg) rotateX(0deg); }
   to { transform: rotateY(360deg) rotateX(360deg); }
}

Each face would be positioned with translateZ to come forward or backward. For example, front is at z:100, back at -100.

So each face:

.face {
   position: absolute;
   width: 200px;
   height: 200px;
   opacity: 1;
}

.front {
   transform: translateZ(100px);
}
.back {
   transform: rotateY(180deg) translateZ(100px);
}
.top {
   transform: rotateX(90deg) translateZ(100px);
}
.bottom {
   transform: rotateX(-90deg) translateZ(100px);
}
.right {
   transform: rotateY(90deg) translateZ(100px);
}
.left {
   transform: rotateY(-90deg) translateZ(100px);
}

But this is just an example; perhaps the exact rotations need more precise setup.

Alternatively, maybe each face's rotation is set so they form a cube when combined.

But this approach requires creating all six faces, setting their positions and rotations correctly. It could be a bit tedious but manageable.

Then the animation is applied to the cube container, making it rotate over time. The keyframes would handle continuous rotation.

This method might be sufficient for a simple rotating cube, and it uses no external dependencies.

Alternatively, using Three.js gives more control but requires including the library. Let's see which one is better.

The user might prefer CSS since it's lighter, but the code might be a bit complex. Let me draft both and see which is better.

Alternatively, let's try the CSS approach first since it can be done without any external libraries. That way, no CDN required except the minimal HTML file.

But let's outline steps:

HTML structure:

<div class="cube-container">
   <div class="cube">
      <div class="face front">Front</div>
      <div class="face back"></div>
      <!-- other faces -->
   </div>
</div>

CSS:

.cube-container {
   perspective: 1000px;
}

.cube {
   transform-style: preserve-3d;
   animation: spin 5s infinite linear;
}

@keyframes spin {
   from { transform: rotateY(0); }
   to { transform: rotateY(360deg); }
}

Then each face:

.face {
   position: absolute;
   width: 200px;
   height: 200px;
}

.front { transform: translateZ(100px); }
.back  { transform: rotateY(180deg) translateZ(-100px); }
.top { transform: rotateX(90deg) translateZ(100px); }
.bottom { rotateX(-90deg) translateZ(100px); }
.right { rotateY(90deg) translateZ(-100px); } // Not sure about the exact rotations here, might need checking.

Wait, perhaps I should look up a quick CSS cube example to structure the faces correctly. Let me think.

Alternatively, maybe I can find a standard way to set up the cube with 6 faces using transforms.

Another thing is the position of each face. For example:

The front is at +z, back at -z.

Then for top and bottom: rotateX(90) or similar. The sides (left/right) rotated around Y axis.

Alternatively, maybe the right face is at +x direction but requires rotation to face front. Hmm, this might be a bit tricky.

Alternatively, here's an example approach from memory:

Each face is placed at the correct position with rotations so that when combined under a common 3D transform, they form a cube.

Perhaps:

.front is at z=100

.back is rotated 180 around x or y, then placed at z= -100?

Alternatively, maybe the back face can be rotated 180deg around Y-axis and placed at negative Z.

Similarly, top face is rotated 90 degrees on the X axis to point upward and placed at +y.

Hmm, perhaps the code would look like:

.face {
  position: absolute;
  width: 200px;
  height: 200px;
}

.front {
   background-color: red;
   transform: translateZ(100px);
}

.back {
   background-color: blue;
   transform: rotateY(180deg) translateZ(100px);
}

.right {
   background-color: green;
   transform: rotateY(90deg) translateZ(100px);
}

.left {
   background-color: yellow;
   transform: rotateY(-90deg) translateZ(100px);
}

.top {
   background-color: cyan;
   transform: rotateX(90deg) translateZ(100px);
}

.bottom {
   background-color: magenta;
   transform: rotateX(-90deg) translateZ(100px);
}

Wait, but the problem here is that if all faces are at translateZ(100px), except back which might be -100.

Wait no, for example, the front is at z+100, back would be at z-100, but rotated so it's facing the front. Let me see.

Actually, when you rotateY(180deg), it flips the back face to face forward but in reverse direction, so translating Z would move it behind. Hmm perhaps need more precise transforms.

Alternatively, maybe each face's position and rotation are such that when combined under the cube container's transform-style: preserve-3d, they form a cube.

Alternatively, perhaps this approach will require each face to be positioned at the correct location.

Wait maybe I should pick a standard example. Let me think of the front face as the base, then other faces are built around it.

Alternatively, here's a simplified way: 

The cube is centered at (0,0,0). Each face is positioned such that they are on the planes of X,Y,Z axes.

Front: facing positive Z. So TranslateZ(100).

Back: facing negative Z, so rotateY(180deg) then translateZ(-100). Wait no: the back face is on negative Z, so if we rotate 180 degrees around Y axis, then translating to +Z=+100 would put it on the back side? Hmm confusing.

Alternatively, perhaps each face is placed in their own plane:

front: z=+100
back: z=-100 (but rotated so that it's visible when looking from front)
left: x=+100 (but rotated to face towards observer)
Wait, perhaps it's better to look for a template.

Alternatively, here is an example I remember from CSS3 transforms:

Each face's position and rotation can be set such that when combined, they form a cube.

The container (cube) has transform-style:preserve-3d and the child faces are positioned with translateXYZ, rotate, etc.

Let me try writing code step by step:

HTML:

<div class="cube-container">
  <div class="cube">
    <div class="face front">Front</div>
    <div class="face back">Back</div>
    <div class="face top">Top</div>
    <div class="face bottom">Bottom</div>
    <div class="face left">Left</div>
    <div class="face right">Right</div>
  </div>
</div>

CSS:

.cube-container {
  perspective: 1000px;
  width: 200px;
  height: 200px;
}

.cube {
  position: relative;
  width: 100%;
  height: 100%;
  transform-style: preserve-3d;
  animation: spin 5s infinite linear;
}

@keyframes spin {
  from { transform: rotateX(0) rotateY(0); }
  to { transform: rotateX(360deg) rotateY(360deg); }
}

.face {
  position: absolute;
  width: 200px;
  height: 200px;
  border: 1px solid black;
}

.front { transform: translateZ(100px); }
.back  { transform: rotateY(180deg) translateZ(100px); }
.top { transform: rotateX(90deg) translateZ(100px); }
.bottom { rotateX(-90deg) translateZ(100px); }
.left  { transform: rotateY(-90deg) translateZ(100px); }
.right { transform: rotateY(90deg) translateZ(100px); }

Wait but let me check:

Front is at +z 100. Back face: rotated around Y 180, so that it faces front again (since rotating 180 around y flips orientation), then translateZ(100) would put it back at +z 100? That can't be right. 

Wait, perhaps the back face should be rotated 180, and then translated to -z. Because rotating it would flip its position.

Let me think again:

Suppose the initial face is front: translateZ(100), so it's on the positive z-plane. 

The back face: if we rotateY(180), it would be facing the same direction as front but flipped, and then translateZ(-100) to put it at the back side. So:

.back { transform: rotateY(180deg) translateZ(-100px); }

Hmm that might be better.

Wait, perhaps the correct approach is to place each face at +100 in their respective axis.

So, for the back face (the one facing the opposite direction of front), you would need to rotate 180 around Y-axis so that it faces the same direction as front, then translate to -Z.

Wait maybe:

Each face is initially in their default position (like front, back, etc.) and then they are translated along their own axis to form the cube. 

Alternatively:

The front face's transform is translateZ(100), so it sits at Z=+100 on the front plane.

The back face, if not rotated, would be at Z=-100. But because it's behind, we might want to rotate it 180 so that the text is facing forward.

Alternatively perhaps:

Wait, I found an example here (from memory) where the back face is at translateZ(-100), rotated appropriately to be visible. Let me try:

Let's adjust the back face: 

.back { transform: rotateY(180deg) translateZ(-100px); }

This way, it is rotated 180 on Y (so text would flip), but placed at -Z, making it the back face.

Similarly for left and right:

left is on -X side so to make it appear facing towards the viewer, you rotate Y by -90 and translate to X=-100? Hmm.

Alternatively:

For the left face, it should be placed on the X negative side. To make it visible from front view, rotating around Y axis by -90 degrees and then translateX(-100px)?

Wait maybe I need to think in terms of 3D coordinates.

The standard approach is that each face is positioned along their respective axis, and rotated appropriately to be perpendicular to the cube's center.

Alternatively, here is a standard CSS3 Cube example from online references (paraphrased):

The cube container has perspective.

Each face is a child with position absolute and positioned at the correct axis.

For example:

.front: translateZ(HALF_WIDTH) (so centered on z-axis)
.back: rotateY(180deg), translateZ(-HALF_WIDTH);
.top: rotated 90 around x, then translate accordingly.
Etc.

Hmm. Let's see:

Suppose the cube is 200x200, each face is a square of 200px. The center is at (100,100).

Wait perhaps the cube's width and height should be set so that each face is of size 200px.

Let me try adjusting the code again:

.cube-container {
    perspective: 1000px;
    width: 200px;
    height: 200px;
}

.cube {
    position: relative;
    width: 100%;
    height: 100%;
    transform-style: preserve-3d;
}

.face {
    position: absolute;
    width: 200px;
    height: 200px;
}

.front {
    background-color: red;
    transform: translateZ(100px);
}
.back {
    background-color: blue;
    transform: rotateY(180deg) translateZ(100px);
}
.right {
    background-color: green;
    transform: rotateY(90deg) translateZ(100px);
}
.left {
    background-color: yellow;
    transform: rotateY(-90deg) translateZ(100px);
}
.top {
    background-color: cyan;
    transform: rotateX(90deg) translateZ(100px);
}
.bottom {
    background-color: magenta;
    transform: rotateX(-90deg) translateZ(100px);
}

The animation is applied to the cube:

.cube {
    transform-style: preserve-3d;
    animation: spin 5s infinite linear;
}

@keyframes spin {
    from { transform: translateZ(0) rotateY(0deg); }
    to   { transform: translateZ(0) rotateY(360deg); }
}

Wait but the rotation might be better along Y only for simplicity. 

But in this setup, all faces are at translateZ(100px). That would place them all on the same Z-axis, which is not correct. Because the back should be behind.

Ah here's the problem! The back face needs to be at -100px, so:

.back should have translateZ(-100px), not +100.

Wait, wait. If the cube is centered at (0,0,0), then each face should be placed along their respective axes.

For example:

The front face is at z = 100 (so +z direction), translated forward in Z.

The back face is at z = -100, but to be visible from front view, it needs to face towards the viewer. So rotating 180 degrees on Y-axis makes it face forward again, then translate to -Z.

So:

.front: translateZ(100px);

.back: rotateY(180deg) translateZ(-100px);

Similarly:

Right face is on the +x side, so to make it face frontwards (along x positive direction), rotateY(-90deg) and translateX(100px). Wait but in 3d transforms, the rotation might need to be different.

Alternatively, maybe it's better to adjust each face:

The right face (facing along positive X axis):

To be positioned at x=100, so translateX(100px), but rotated around Y axis by -90deg. Wait perhaps:

transform: rotateY(-90deg) translateZ(100px);

Wait, perhaps I need to consider that each face is placed in their own axis direction. For example:

For the right face (facing along x-axis):

The right face would be positioned on the positive X axis, so its normal vector points along the +X direction. To have it visible from front (where Y and Z are orthogonal), perhaps rotating around the Y axis by -90 degrees would orient it correctly, and then translate along X.

Hmm this is getting complicated. Let me see:

Alternatively, maybe using the right face's transformation as rotateY(90deg) and then translateX(100px). Or maybe:

Let me try this approach for the right face.

The default front face is facing along -Z direction (since screen is like looking at +Z, so the default front face is at negative Z? Hmm perhaps I'm getting confused with coordinate systems.)

Wait, in CSS transforms, the 3D space is such that Z increases away from the viewer. So by default, when you place a element on top of another in Z direction, higher Z is in front.

So to make the front face be at +Z, perhaps:

.front { transform: translateZ(100px); }

Thus it sits 100px in front.

The back face needs to be at -Z, so translateZ(-100px). But flipping it with rotateY(180) so that it faces toward the viewer.

So back: transform: rotateY(180deg) translateZ(-100px).

Similarly for the right face:

The right face's default orientation is facing along its own +Y axis (assuming no rotation). To make it face towards viewer, perhaps rotate around the X axis?

Alternatively:

The right face (facing along +X direction) is placed at X = 100. To have its face towards the viewer (from front), we need to rotate it so that its normal is along +X. To do this:

If the face is originally facing along -Z (like front), rotating around Y axis by 90 degrees would point it towards +X.

Wait, maybe the rotation is needed so that when you rotate Y axis by 90 degrees, it's facing along X direction.

Wait perhaps the following:

Each face starts oriented as front (facing -Z). To get it to the right side, rotate it 90 degrees around Y-axis so that its normal is along +X. Then translate to the X direction.

Thus:

.right {
   transform: rotateY(90deg) translateY(0) translateX(100px);
}

Wait, perhaps:

transform: rotateY(90deg) translateZ(100px);

Wait, this way rotating Y by 90 degrees would turn it to face along X axis. Then translateZ(100px) moves it forward in Z? Hmm not sure.

Alternatively, I think the following approach is needed for each face:

The X (right/left), Y (top/bottom) faces must be rotated around another axis so that their normals are along the respective axes.

This is getting too time-consuming. Maybe I should look up a CSS cube example's code structure quickly.

Alternatively, proceed with the Three.js solution which is straightforward and requires less CSS trickery.

So using Three.js from a CDN:

In the HTML head, include the script tag for Three.js. Then create a scene with a cube.

The steps would be:

1. Create a canvas (though Three.js can render in a div as well, but more common to use canvas).

Wait no: by default Three.js uses a <canvas> element. So in the body:

<body>
  <div id="cube-container"></div>
</body>

Wait, actually in Three.js, you can have the renderer render into a canvas element which is appended to the container.

Alternatively, here's an example structure:

HTML:

<div id="webgl"></div>

CSS to set the container size.

JS code would create a scene, camera, renderer (WebGL), add geometry and materials.

Here's the basic steps in code:

- Create scene, camera, renderer (WebGLRenderer), set their parameters.

- Add a cube geometry with a material.

- Position the camera so it can see the cube.

- Animate using requestAnimationFrame, rotating the cube each frame.

The code would be something like:

const scene = new THREE.Scene();
const camera = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera(75, window.innerWidth/window.innerHeight, 0.1, 1000);
const renderer = new THREE.WebGLRenderer({antialias: true});
renderer.setSize(window.innerWidth, window.innerHeight);
document.body.appendChild( renderer.domElement );

const geometry = new THREE.BoxGeometry();
const material = new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial({color: 0x00ff00, wireframe: true});
const cube = new THREE.Mesh(geometry, material);
scene.add(cube);

camera.position.z = 5;

function animate() {
    requestAnimationFrame(animate);
    cube.rotation.x += 0.01;
    cube.rotation.y += 0.01;
    renderer.render(scene, camera);
}
animate();

This will create a green cube rotating around its center on X and Y axes.

To make it look better, maybe add lighting. MeshBasicMaterial doesn't require light, but if using phong or other materials, need lights.

Alternatively, let's use a MeshLambertMaterial and add an ambient light:

scene.add(new THREE.AmbientLight(0x404040));

And maybe a directional light:

const light = new THREE.DirectionalLight( 0xffffff, 1 );
light.position.set(10, 10, 10).normalize();
scene.add( light );

This would add shading.

Alternatively, keep it simple with MeshBasicMaterial for simplicity.

The downside is that the user has to include the Three.js CDN, but it's manageable.

Now considering all this, perhaps using Three.js is more straightforward and gives a better result with less CSS code. The user allows external cdns, so this is acceptable.

So let's go with the Three.js approach.

The final code would have:

1. A script tag in head to include three.min.js from a CDN.

2. The body has a div where the cube is rendered (though Three's renderer creates its own canvas).

Wait, no. The WebGLRenderer creates a canvas and appends it to the document body (or wherever). So maybe just:

In HTML, within body tags: <body></body>, and the script appends the canvas to document.body.

Alternatively, ensure that the CSS sets body's margin and padding to zero so the canvas takes full screen.

Overall, here's how I would structure it:

HTML File:

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
    <title>3D Cube</title>
    <style>
        body { margin: 0; overflow: hidden; }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/three@0.152/build/three.min.js"></script>
<script>
// JavaScript code here
</script>
</body>
</html>

Then in the script section, write the ThreeJS code as outlined earlier.

Wait but let's complete that. Here we go:

The JavaScript part inside the script tags:

const scene = new THREE.Scene();
const camera = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera(75, window.innerWidth / window.innerHeight, 0.1, 100);
const renderer = new THREE.WebGLRenderer({ alpha: true });
renderer.setSize(window.innerWidth, window.innerHeight);
document.body.appendChild(renderer.domElement);

const geometry = new THREE.BoxGeometry(1, 1, 1);
const material = new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial({ color: 'red', wireframe: true });
const cube = new THREE.Mesh(geometry, material);
scene.add(cube);

camera.position.z = 3; // move camera back to see the cube

function animate() {
    requestAnimationFrame(animate);
  
    // rotate the cube smoothly
    cube.rotation.x += 0.01;
    cube.rotation.y += 0.01;
  
    renderer.render(scene, camera);
}
animate();

This should create a rotating red cube with wireframe.

Wait but maybe set the background color? By default, MeshBasicMaterial's color is in a dark scene. To see better:

Adding Ambient light?

Alternatively, change the material to MeshLambert and add a light.

Let me adjust it:

const ambientLight = new THREE.AmbientLight(0xcccccc, 1);
scene.add(ambientLight);

const directionalLight = new THREE.DirectionalLight(0xffffff, 1);
directionalLight.position.set(1, 1, 1).normalize();
scene.add(directionalLight);

Then use MeshLambertMaterial:

const material = new THREE.MeshLambertMaterial({ color: 'red', wireframe: false });

This way, the cube has some shading.

Also, setting the background color of the renderer to black:

renderer.setClearColor('#000000');

Putting it all together.

Final considerations: the cube might be too small, so increase scaling:

cube.scale.set(2, 2, 2);

Or adjust the geometry's size.

Alternatively, let's put all together step by step with proper code:

The full HTML file would be:

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
    <meta charset="UTF-8">
    <title>3D Rotating Cube</title>
    <style>
        body { margin: 0; overflow: hidden }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/three@0.152/build/three.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/three@0.152/examples/js/controls/OrbitControls.js"></script>
<script>
    const scene = new THREE.Scene();
    const camera = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera(75, window.innerWidth / window.innerHeight, 0.1, 100);
    const renderer = new THREE.WebGLRenderer({ antialias: true });
    renderer.setClearColor(0x000000);
    renderer.setSize(window.innerWidth, window.innerHeight);
    document.body.appendChild(renderer.domElement);

    const geometry = new THREE.BoxGeometry(2, 2, 2);
    const material = new THREE.MeshLambertMaterial({ color: 0xff0000 }); // Red
    const cube = new THREE.Mesh(geometry, material);
    scene.add(cube);

    // Lights
    const ambientLight = new THREE.AmbientLight(0x404040); // soft white light
    scene.add(ambientLight);

    const directionalLight = new THREE.DirectionalLight(0xffffff, 1);
    directionalLight.position.set(3, 3, 3).normalize();
    scene.add(directionalLight);

    camera.position.z = 5;
    scene.add(new THREE.AxesHelper(5));
    
    // Add controls for orbit (optional)
    const controls = new THREE.OrbitControls(camera, renderer.domElement);
    
    function animate() {
        requestAnimationFrame(animate);

        cube.rotation.x += 0.01;
        cube.rotation.y += 0.01;

        controls.update();
        
        renderer.render(scene, camera);
    }
    
    animate();

</script>
</body>
</html>

Wait but adding OrbitControls might require another CDN. The user said external dependencies are allowed via cdn, so including those is okay.

Alternatively, remove the controls if not needed. Since the question says "rotating", maybe continuous rotation is sufficient.

Let me adjust again without OrbitControls to minimize code:

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
    <title>3D Cube Rotation</title>
    <style>
        body { margin: 0; overflow: hidden; }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/three@0.152/build/three.min.js"></script>
<script>

// Scene setup
const scene = new THREE.Scene();
const camera = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera(75, window.innerWidth/window.innerHeight, 0.1, 100);
const renderer = new THREE.WebGLRenderer({ antialias: true });
renderer.setSize(window.innerWidth, window.innerHeight);
document.body.appendChild( renderer.domElement );
renderer.setClearColor(0x000000);

// Cube creation
const geometry = new THREE.BoxGeometry(2, 2, 2);
const material = new THREE.MeshPhongMaterial({ color: 0xaaffaa }); // Light green
const cube = new THREE.Mesh(geometry, material);
scene.add(cube);

// Lighting - add ambient and directional light
const ambLight = new THREE.AmbientLight(0x444444);
scene.add(ambLight);

const dirLight = new THREE.DirectionalLight(0xffffff, 1);
dirLight.position.set(3, 3, 3).normalize();
scene.add(dirLight);

// Camera position
camera.position.z = 5;
scene.add( new THREE.AxesHelper(2) ); // Optional, to see axes

// Animation loop
function animate() {
    requestAnimationFrame(animate);
    
    cube.rotation.x += 0.01;
    cube.rotation.y += 0.01;
    
    renderer.render( scene, camera );
}
animate();

</script>
</body>
</html>

This code should display a rotating cube, green in color with some shading. The axes helper is optional but helps visualize the rotation.

Alternatively, to make it even simpler without lights and just basic material:

Using MeshBasicMaterial, so no need for lights.

So here's a simplified version:

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
    <title>3D Cube Rotation</title>
    <style>
        body { margin: 0; overflow: hidden; }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/three@0.152/build/three.min.js"></script>
<script>

const scene = new THREE.Scene();
const camera = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera(75, window.innerWidth / window.innerHeight, 0.1, 100);
const renderer = new THREE.WebGLRenderer();
renderer.setSize(window.innerWidth, window.innerHeight);
document.body.appendChild(renderer.domElement);

const geometry = new THREE.BoxGeometry(2, 2, 2);
// Use a simple material without needing lights
const material = new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial({ color: 0xff0000 });
const cube = new THREE.Mesh(geometry, material);
scene.add(cube);

camera.position.z = 5;

function animate() {
    requestAnimationFrame(animate);
    
    cube.rotation.x += 0.01;
    cube.rotation.y += 0.02;
    
    renderer.render(scene, camera);
}

animate();

</script>
</body>
</html>

This version is simpler and uses no lights, so the cube's color is consistent. The rotation speeds can be adjusted (0.01 and 0.02 make it spin smoothly).

This should work without any issues, with the cube rotating continuously on both axes.

Now, considering all this, either approach is possible. But since the user allows CDN dependencies and Three.js makes it easy to implement, I think that's a solid answer.

Alternatively, if using CSS is preferred for no external dependencies:

Here's a working example I found online (adapted):

But to ensure it works, let me try coding it:

CSS Cube Example

HTML structure:

<div class="cube-container">
  <div class="cube">
    <!-- Faces -->
    <div class="face front">Front</div>
    <div class="face back">Back</div>
    <div class="face top">Top</div>
    <div class="face bottom">Bottom</div>
    <div class="face left">Left</div>
    <div class="face right">Right</div>
  </div>
</div>

CSS:

.cube-container {
    perspective: 1000px;
}

.cube {
    position: relative;
    width: 200px;
    height: 200px;
    transform-style: preserve-3d;
    animation: spin 10s infinite linear;
}

@keyframes spin {
    from { transform: rotateY(0); }
    to   { transform: rotateY(360deg); }
}

.face {
    position: absolute;
    width: 200px;
    height: 200px;
    border: 1px solid #000;
}

.front {
    transform: translateZ(100px);
    background-color: red;
}
.back {
    transform: rotateY(180deg) translateZ(100px);
    background-color: blue;
}
.right {
    transform: rotateY(90deg) translateZ(100px);
    background-color: green;
}
.left {
    transform: rotateY(-90deg) translateZ(100px);
    background-color: yellow;
}
.top {
    transform: rotateX(90deg) translateZ(100px);
    background-color: cyan;
}
.bottom {
    transform: rotateX(-90deg) translateZ(100px);
    background-color: magenta;
}

This might work, but need to check the translations.

Wait in this code:

All faces are at translateZ(100px), which would place them all in front of the center. The back face is rotated 180 but still at +Z=100, so it's on same position as front? No that can't be.

Ah the problem is here:

The back face should have translateZ(-100px), so that it's behind. 

So the back face should be:

.back {
    transform: rotateY(180deg) translateZ(-100px);
}

Similarly for other faces:

The right face is on the positive Y axis? Or rotating to the correct side.

Let me adjust that and test:

Correcting back's translateZ to -100px.

Then other faces also need their correct translations. Let me see:

The right face is on the Y-axis rotation to point towards the X direction?

Wait, perhaps each face should be placed along their respective axis at 100 units away from the center, so back face translates to -Z.

Adjusting:

.face {
    width: 200px;
    height: 200px;
}

.front { translateZ(100); }
.back  { rotateY(180) translateZ(-100) }
.right { rotateY(90deg) translateZ(100); } 

Wait, perhaps the right face's rotation is such that it faces along X+, so translating to translateX(100px)?

Hmm, this requires precise transforms.

Alternatively:

The right face's transform is rotateY(90deg) and then translateX(100px). 

Wait, but to position it on the right side.

Alternatively:

Let me think of each face's default orientation facing along -Z. 

To position the right (along +X), you rotate around Y by 90 degrees to face along X, then translate along the new Z axis (since after rotation).

Hmm this is getting too complex. Perhaps the CSS approach requires a more accurate setup.

Alternatively, here's a working example found in CSS:

Sample CSS cube code (adapted):

<style>
.cube {
    position: relative;
    width: 200px;
    height: 200px;
    transform-style: preserve-3d;
}

.cube-container {
    perspective: 1000px;
    transform-style: preserve-3d;
}

.face {
    position: absolute;
    width: 200px;
    height: 200px;
}

.front { 
    transform: translateZ(100px);
    background-color: red;
}
.back { 
    transform: rotateY(180deg) translateZ(100px);
    background-color: blue;
}
.right { 
    transform: rotateY(90deg) translateZ(100px);
    background-color: green;
}
.left { 
    transform: rotateY(-90deg) translateZ(100px);
    background-color: yellow;
}
.top { 
    transform: rotateX(90deg) translateZ(100px);
    background-color: cyan;
}
.bottom { 
    transform: rotateX(-90deg) translateZ(100px);
    background-color: magenta;
}

.cube {
    animation: spin 10s infinite linear;
}
@keyframes spin {
    from { transform: rotateY(0deg); }
    to   { transform: rotateY(360deg); }
}
</style>

<div class="cube-container">
    <div class="cube">
        <div class="face front">F</div>
        <div class="face back"></div>
        <div class="face right"></div>
    etc.
</div>

This might not look correct because all faces are at +Z=100.

Ah so back face should be:

.back { transform: rotateY(180deg) translateZ(-100px); 

So the back face is translated to -Z, so it's behind.

Similarly right: translate along what?

Wait the right face is at +Y rotated to face X+ direction. So perhaps rotating Y by 90 and then translating along the new Z (which is now aligned with X).

Hmm, so for right:

transform: rotateY(90deg) translateZ(100px);

This way, after rotating Y by 90, the face now faces along X+ direction. The translateZ moves it in that new Z axis (which is the original Y), so effectively moving along +X direction.

Wait perhaps:

After rotating Y by 90, the Z axis becomes the original Y? The translation would move along new Z: which would be in direction of X.

This way, the face is placed at +X 100 units from center.

Similarly left would be rotateY(-90) and translateZ(100). That places it at -X direction? 

Wait no, rotateY(-90):

If you rotate Y by -90 degrees (clockwise?), then the face points to the left side, and translating Z moves it along that axis.

Hmm this is getting confusing. But perhaps the CSS approach works with these transforms when back's translateZ is -100.

So let me update the CSS accordingly:

.back {
    transform: rotateY( 180deg ) translateZ(-100px);
}
.right {
    transform: rotateY(90deg) translateZ(100px);
}
.left {
    transform: rotateY(-90deg) translateZ(100px);
}
.top {
    transform: rotateX(90deg) translateZ(100px);
}
.bottom {
    transform: rotateX(-90deg) translateZ(100px);
}

This way:

- front is at +Z
- back is at -Z (with rotation to face front)
- Right and left are on Y rotated, translating their new Z axis to 100.
- top and bottom similarly.

Let's try this:

Final CSS code for the cube faces with correct translations:

.face {
    position: absolute;
    width: 200px;
    height: 200px;
}

.front {
    transform: translateZ(100px);
    background-color: red;
}
.back {
    transform: rotateY( 180deg ) translateZ(-100px);
    background-color: blue;
}
.right {
    transform: rotateY( 90deg ) translateZ(100px);
    background-color: green;
}
.left {
    transform: rotateY(-90deg ) translateZ(100px);
    background-color: yellow;
}
.top {
    transform: rotateX(-90deg ) translateZ(100px);
    background-color: cyan;
}
.bottom {
    transform: rotateX( 90deg ) translateZ(-100px);
    background-color: magenta;
}

Wait, the top face rotation is rotateX(90) or -90?

Hmm perhaps:

For the top to be facing upwards, you rotate around X by 90 degrees. But translateZ(100px) would place it at +Y direction?

Alternatively, maybe:

The top: transform: rotateX(90deg) translateZ(100px); 

This would put it on the +Y side. Because after rotating around X by 90, looking up along Y becomes forward (Z direction). Thus translateZ moves it in that new Z which is the original Y. So yes, top face at +Y direction.

Wait maybe need to adjust:

Perhaps the bottom is rotateX(-90) and translateZ(100px).

Let me adjust:

.front: +z
back: -z with rotation

right: rotateY(90) and translateZ+100 → X+

left: rotateY(-90), translatex?

Wait, perhaps the left and right's translateZ is correct.

Let me try:

With this setup, the cube should form properly with faces in their respective positions.

The animation on the cube itself's rotation (spinning) would be handled by the rotateY in keyframes.

Testing this CSS code may require seeing it in action, but if I can't test right now, perhaps proceed.

The final HTML with this approach would be:

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
    <meta charset="UTF-8">
    <title>CSS 3D Cube Rotation</title>
    <style>
        * { margin:0; padding:0; }
        body {
            display:flex;
            justify-content:center;
            align-items:center;
            height:100vh;
            perspective: 1000px;
        }

        .cube-container {
            width:200px;
            height:200px;
            transform-style: preserve-3d;
            animation: spin 5s infinite linear;
        }

        .face {
            position:absolute;
            width:200px;
            height:200px;
        }

        .front { 
            transform: translateZ(100px); 
            background: red; 
        }
        .back { 
            transform: rotateY(180deg) translateZ(-100px); 
            background: blue; 
        }
        .right { 
            transform: rotateY(90deg) translateZ(100px); 
            background: green; 
        }
        .left { 
            transform: rotateY(-90deg) translateZ(100px); 
            background: yellow; 
        }
        .top { 
            transform: rotateX(90deg) translateZ(100px); 
            background: cyan; 
        }
        .bottom { 
            transform: rotateX(-90deg) translateZ(-100px); 
            background: magenta; 
        }

        @keyframes spin {
            0% { transform: rotateY(0); }
            100% { transform: rotateY(360deg); }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
    <div class="cube-container">
        <div class="face front"></div>
        <div class="face back"></div>
        <div class="face right"></div>
        <div class="face left"></div>
        <div class="face top"></div>
        <div class="face bottom"></div>
    </div>
</body>
</html>

Wait, in this setup:

The cube-container is the .cube itself? Or perhaps I misunderstood earlier.

Wait, in this code:

The cube-container has the animation spin applied, so it's rotating. The child .face elements are positioned inside.

Wait let me recheck the code structure:

The cube-container is styled with perspective, and contains the .cube (the actual container for faces?) Or in this case:

Actually, in this code setup:

The cube-container is the actual cube (the .cube from previous examples), which contains all the faces as its children. It has the animation applied.

The body's perspective is set so that the cube-container (the cube) can be seen in 3D.

This should work, but need to see if the faces are placed correctly with their transforms.

The bottom face in this code has rotateX(-90) and translateZ(-100px). The top face is at Z+.

Wait, for the bottom to be on the -Y side (down), rotating X by 90 degrees would point downwards, so translateZ(-100) places it further back? Hmm.

Alternatively, perhaps:

.top's transform: rotateX(90deg) translateZ(100px);

This way, after rotating X by 90, the face is facing +Y direction, and translateZ(100) moves it along that new Z (which was original Y).

Thus placing it at +Y, making the top face.

Similarly bottom would be:

transform: rotateX(-90deg) translateZ(100px); 

So that it faces -Y and is at 100 along new Z (the original Y direction), but that would also be +Y. Hmm this might not work.

Alternatively perhaps the bottom should have translateZ(-100):

.bottom { transform: rotateX(-90deg) translateZ(-100px); }

This way, after rotating -90 around X (so pointing downward), translateZ moves it along the new Z-axis which is now in -Y, putting it lower down.

Hmm this requires precise calculations that might be time consuming without testing.

Given the time I've spent considering both approaches, and knowing that Three.js will definitely work with minimal code and clear results, I think the best path is to provide the Three.js-based solution. It's simple and effective.

Therefore, I'll proceed with the Three.js implementation.
</think>

Here’s a self-contained HTML file implementing a rotating 3D cube using Three.js with CDN dependencies:

```html
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
    <meta charset="UTF-8">
    <title>3D Rotating Cube</title>
    <style>
        body { margin: 0; overflow: hidden }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/three@0.152/build/three.min.js"></script>
<script>
    // Scene setup
    const scene = new THREE.Scene();
    const camera = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera(75, window.innerWidth/window.innerHeight, 0.1, 100);
    const renderer = new THREE.WebGLRenderer({ antialias: true });
    renderer.setSize(window.innerWidth, window.innerHeight);
    document.body.appendChild( renderer.domElement );
    renderer.setClearColor(0x000000);

    // Cube creation
    const geometry = new THREE.BoxGeometry(2, 2, 2);
    const material = new THREE.MeshPhongMaterial({ color: 0xff69b4 }); // Hotpink
    const cube = new THREE.Mesh(geometry, material);
    scene.add(cube);

    // Lighting configuration
    const ambientLight = new THREE.AmbientLight(0x404040);
    scene.add(ambientLight);

    const directionalLight = new THREE.DirectionalLight(0xffffff, 1);
    directionalLight.position.set(3, 3, 3).normalize();
    scene.add(directionalLight);

    // Camera positioning
    camera.position.z = 5;

    // Animation loop
    function animate() {
        requestAnimationFrame(animate);
        
        cube.rotation.x += 0.01;
        cube.rotation.y += 0.02;

        renderer.render(scene, camera);
    }

    animate();
</script>
</body>
</html>
```

### Key Features:
1. **Three.js** (loaded from CDN) is used for 3D rendering.
2. A cube rotates continuously around both X and Y axes.
3. Includes basic lighting for better depth perception:
   - Ambient light provides base illumination
   - A directional light creates shading and realism.
4. The cube uses a hotpink material (`0xff69b4`).
5. Full-screen rendering with smooth anti-aliasing.

### How It Works:
- The scene and camera are initialized, then a WebGL renderer is set up to render into the document body.
- A cube mesh with geometry and material is created, then added to the scene.
- Lighting improves visual quality by creating highlights and shadows.
- The animation loop uses `requestAnimationFrame` to smoothly rotate the cube.

To view this in action, simply save the code as an HTML file and open it in any modern web browser. The cube will spin continuously with smooth rotation effects.

================================================================================
METRICS:
================================================================================
Tokens/sec: 12.7
Total tokens: 11099
Prompt tokens: 51
Completion tokens: 11048
Total time: 869776ms
Time to first token: 522ms