Re: AR Web

Technically it is almost spec’ed already.

https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/links.html#rel-icon


Only issue is that our type is model/gltf+... which is not an image type. The extension to the specification would be that:
1) The type can be other than an image type such as model. We could say image or model for now. Which formats of models is not important really since we probably want to be restrictive but until the mass web agrees it would be better to simply accept any supported popular 3d format.
2) We should consider if we want to amend the default lookup behavior when an icon is not present. I propose that we do not as that is legacy behavior and in our case we can do this more completely. That said it will be a pain to have every page on a site get updated and I’m betting a large majority of fav icons today are served from the legacy behavior path. It would be good to get Edge, Chrome and FireFox to supply Browser stats on how most favicons are served.

On Aug 18, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Blair MacIntyre <bmacintyre@mozilla.com<mailto:bmacintyre@mozilla.com>> wrote:

Not really red flags for the 3D favicon;  this seems like something that is pretty “small”, would be really useful, and could be worked out and implemented by a few browsers, especially since the bigger questions of “what to do with the favicon” is up to the UA.


--
Blair MacIntyre
Principal Research Scientist
bmacintyre@mozilla.com<mailto:bmacintyre@mozilla.com>
https://pronoun.is/he/him<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__pronoun.is_he_him&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=aiUMbGW4WL3JSYxR2Qm1uYACjq-bqRegNtlyhvV4xew&m=3Z7xD8YCqOmOMRGC9Q3JHJS0fK-JkA0AaGLo79sZ5Ew&s=BCCL9IrpI1a5RX9-gcRnBnYN6JuAq5mbWANP_xlaFkI&e=>
https://blairmacintyre.me<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__blairmacintyre.me&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=aiUMbGW4WL3JSYxR2Qm1uYACjq-bqRegNtlyhvV4xew&m=3Z7xD8YCqOmOMRGC9Q3JHJS0fK-JkA0AaGLo79sZ5Ew&s=SPZ2St3v6SaAsAFB6siCaEPk3xFtFJrZ7AhhVSV85qE&e=>



On August 18, 2018 at 3:15:31 PM, holykoolala (holykoolala@gmail.com<mailto:holykoolala@gmail.com>) wrote:

Is this discussion setting off red flags for anyone else? Official standards seem premature for something so undeveloped and not well understood.

-Brett

On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 10:38 AM Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com<mailto:cwilso@google.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 8:31 PM Rik Cabanier <rcabanier@magicleap.com<mailto:rcabanier@magicleap.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 4:46 PM Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com<mailto:cwilso@google.com>> wrote:
Definite +1 to driving this in the IWCG.  The focus on getting WebXR Device API out of the door will move to the soon-to-be-open-for-business Working Group, which should free up some time and focus in the CG.  I'm personally pretty interested in driving some discussion in the CG for how we can get some model interop - i.e. rough standardization on asset type support,

Yes, that is a good idea. We will likely have to talk to several group within W3C to get a standard model type for the web.

Yup.  And make no mistake, I don't expect we'll limit the web to one model type, but it would be good to get a baseline.

As for the AR content, we can present what we currently implemented if there's interest from the group.

I think that would be useful.

and I've poked in to what you've done in Helio and Prismatic.

I'd love to hear what your thoughts are on our approach. Did you already find the web inspector? :-)

I saw the support but haven't hooked it in yet.  I did get a hub with mine, though, so I'm preparing.  :)  The browser UX had some... interesting choices.  I think the ML-model design has some potential, though it seems pretty specific to headset AR scenario at first glance, and I think bridging across device scenarios will be one of the harder challenges here.