Re: AR Web

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> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 8:31 PM Rik Cabanier <rcabanier@magicleap.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 4:46 PM Chris Wilson <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.
>
>
>