Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] WebVR (#106)

+@cvan @kearwood @NellWaliczek and @DigiTec, to name a few.

A bit of background: After both the previous TAG review of 1.x and input from several other sources the WebVR community group collectively decided that we needed to make larger, backwards-compatibility-breaking changes to the spec before it was ready for widespread use. We've dubbed this effort "2.0" for disambiguation purposes within the group, but do not intend to promote it publicly as a 2.0 API (it will replace any implementations of the 1.x API and simply be called "WebVR").

Our intention has been to present the revised API for TAG review once we had agreed on the high level approaches we wanted to take for a few outstanding questions so that we could get feedback on all major aspects of the API. We're happy to discuss the current state of things with anyone who has questions, though! In the meantime the [WebVR explainer](https://github.com/w3c/webvr/blob/master/explainer.md) is the best place to review the current designs. (For the record [This branch](https://github.com/w3c/webvr/blob/mirroring/explainer.md) is a bit newer and reflects some more of the ongoing discussion in the GitHub issues.)

On the topic of isolating VR from the rest of the web, the members of the community group all pretty much agree that we want to bridge the gap between the two over time. Our focus for the moment is a minimum viable spec that gives basic access to the hardware, and once that's shipped we can layer on various capabilities to harness more of the traditional web in VR and visa-versa. In the meantime we are putting a pretty heavy emphasis on VR as a progressive enhancement to more traditional WebGL content, rather than encouraging developers to build VR-only pages.

Please feel free to reach out with questions at any time!

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/106#issuecomment-298181153