Re: 3d favicons

On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 8:09 PM Leonard Daly <web3d@realism.com> wrote:

> Rik,
>
> glTF is a good format for models; however, there are several issues with
> it being using as a "favicon"
> 1. glTF is not necessarily a small display format and it is hard to
> automatically downsize a model. Favicons have the very nice property of
> being very small in (disk space) size. Models are not necessarily that way.
>

We can specify that they can no be over a certain byte size and UAs can
reject them if they go over. (Later revisions of the spec can up the number
as machines get more powerful)

What do you mean by "hard to automatically downsize a model"? We've made
several model for favicons and it hasn't been an issue so far.


> 2. glTF is a transmission format, not an archive format. glTF V2 is not
> backwards compatible with glTF V1. There is no current guarantee that a V3
> format would be backwards compatible with V2.
>
> I don't have a suggestion for what might make a good format that is
> inherently small and long lasting. Perhaps a new concept would need to be
> developed.
>

Hmm, that is indeed a problem...
Could we say that favicon model must be compatible with V2?


>
> On 8/17/2018 7:16 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 4:27 PM Waliczek, Nell <nhw@amazon.com> wrote:
>
>> This is something that I have heard several different folks express
>> interest in.  The best way to move this forward would be to write up an
>> issue on the Proposals Repo https://github.com/immersive-web/proposals
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_immersive-2Dweb_proposals&d=DwMGaQ&c=0ia8zh_eZtQM1JEjWgVLZg&r=jahSgznxrAL5kPgsRvs7bhKUEd9M5X0d-NE2WJg7VT0&m=IHxKbziTOHAqPbdgA6_-VEyszxOKo-r7DJ1_alMyVxg&s=PCCWIJzVu9w36Z6EfnFY18NFKC_9kiZxmBrOqWqduZA&e=>
>> .  The write-up should have a clear description of the problem and a rough
>> idea of how you’re thinking about trying to solve it.  A few paragraphs is
>> more than sufficient; no need for a full explainer or idl of any sort yet.
>>
>>
>>
>> Another company will need to respond to the issue to say they’re
>> interested in collaborating on design with intent to implement if agreement
>> can be reached.  Initial design work can start in the issue, and, when
>> ready, Trevor will open up a repo in the Immersive Web GitHub organization
>> for you to start iterating on the design in more detail.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m very excited that Magic Leap is seriously considering participating
>> in standards design rather than taking an approach that would run the risk
>> of fracturing the Immersive Web 😊
>>
>
> Thanks Nell!
>
> We'll write up a proposal.
> It will mostly build on the existing favicon syntax but will use gltf
> instead of ico. If other people already have an implementation, please let
> us know so we can work on the document together.
>
> Let's say our group comes to an agreement, do we then take it to the HTML
> WG?
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Rik Cabanier <rcabanier@magicleap.com>
>> *Date: *Friday, August 17, 2018 at 3:34 PM
>> *To: *"public-immersive-web@w3.org" <public-immersive-web@w3.org>
>> *Subject: *3d favicons
>> *Resent-From: *<public-immersive-web@w3.org>
>> *Resent-Date: *Friday, August 17, 2018 at 3:32 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> We're interested in coming up with a standardized way of supporting 3D
>> favicons so a website can have a 2D and a 3D icon.
>>
>> Helio [1] already implemented some support but we want to have a
>> standardized solution that incorporates everyone's input.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is anyone else interested in pursuing this?
>>
>>
>>
>> Rik
>>
>>
>>
>> 1: https://www.magicleap.com/experiences/helio
>>
>
> --
> *Leonard Daly*
> 3D Systems Architect & Cloud Consultant
> President, Daly Realism - *Creating the Future*
>