Re: AR Web

On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 1:42 PM Justin Rogers <j.rogers@oculus.com> 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=DwMGaQ&c=0ia8zh_eZtQM1JEjWgVLZg&r=jahSgznxrAL5kPgsRvs7bhKUEd9M5X0d-NE2WJg7VT0&m=V6DO4g4XKBhTvEFVOQbQuIE_j38nbzZJm2HGCvv46IM&s=xAZXHt6RyKD9VWNiYIJTx8uCz_Y0Shj0J0SRQ25noGQ&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.
>

Do you think there's a reason to have more than 1?
gltf is an open standard and I suspect most other formats will have a gltf
convertor.
We probably want to specify that they are below a certain size and have no
external dependencies.


> 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.
>

Only pages that want to provide 3D icons would have to be updated, right?


> On Aug 18, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Blair MacIntyre <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
> 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)
> 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> 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.
>>
>>
>>