Re: AR Web

On 8/18/2018 4:05 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
> FYI, we did not extend the HTML namespace by adding new element types.
> Instead, we created a set of lower level JavaScript functions and then
> built Prismatic to provide a declarative interface using that API.
> We use custom elements [1] to create our custom <ml-model> and
> <ml-quad> tags.
>
> We went this way because it's very flexible (easier to iterate in
> JavaScript) and because we suspect that creating new tags would be a
> drawn-out process.
>

Yup - definitely the way to go, I'm happy to see the direction Magic
Leap is taking with respect to the web, embracing standards and being
part of the conversation.  For now we've all created our own namespaced
tags that work within our own platforms, and in doing so we're
identifying all of the ways people will use these primitives.  From
there begins the longer process of hammering out a common set of
functionality that works for everyone while excluding as few use-cases
as possible.

Maybe after 5 years we'll convince everyone to agree on a common set of
functionality, and then another 5 years convincing browser makers to
implement it, before we can really say the work is done.  The important
thing is keeping the conversation alive and driving it ever forwards :)


>     On the specific question of 3d favicons, I think as Blair and
>     Justin said, at this level it would be up to the user agents to
>     decide which formats they support - the interpretation of favicons
>     and the ability to support different formats has always been up to
>     the useragent, so it isn't really a big leap to allow for 3d model
>     files here.
>
> 1: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Web_Components/Using_custom_elements
>  
>
>
>     On 08/18/2018 01:42 PM, Justin Rogers wrote:
>>     Technically it is almost spec’ed already. 
>>
>>     https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/links.html#rel-icon
>>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__html.spec.whatwg.org_multipage_links.html-23rel-2Dicon&d=DwMDaQ&c=0ia8zh_eZtQM1JEjWgVLZg&r=jahSgznxrAL5kPgsRvs7bhKUEd9M5X0d-NE2WJg7VT0&m=mkfDdK3sAlkkN0Hp1Xt9qU7_QSMyYjK93MUAbO7Mjf8&s=lKyPgMic3wgMYUbfyuDvvN768m8_J44dGHqMR2kHlMo&e=>
>>
>>     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.
>>>>
>>>>
>