- From: Brandon Jones <bajones@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 23:39:51 +0000
- To: Iker Jamardo <ijamardo@google.com>
- Cc: Kearwood Kip Gilbert <kgilbert@mozilla.com>, "public-webvr@w3.org" <public-webvr@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAEGwwi2F+VPEgfxKFF-ujZZQddNUjuAamH0LHug0yj2V0nOWjw@mail.gmail.com>
As discussed on the call, a GitHub issue for discussion of an WebGL 2.0 Array Texture layer type has been created: https://github.com/immersive-web/webxr/issues/317 On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 4:18 PM Iker Jamardo <ijamardo@google.com> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Here are the notes of today's meeting. > > > > * - Brandon will send an email thread to talk about other technologies for > how to meet. Meet is forcing everyone to use Chrome.- Incubator/Ideas > repo:- Name? - David Dorwin: Proposals, Propose work. - Ideas is too > broad.- Blair: All the proposed names/concepts imply something different. > What is the purpose of the repo.- Brandon: My idea is that is should be > about proposals with technical background. That is why I like "proposals" > as a name.- Nell: The idea is not that this repo is where the ideas should > be incubated. The idea is to submit ideas only and to make actual designed > and elaborated ideas in the main repo.- David Dorwin: this repo should be > for discussion not for landing anything.- Blair: Link to the process > followed by the RUST team: > https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/tree/master/text > <https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/tree/master/text>- Brandon: Playground > might be for random discussion.- Nell: Likes the idea of "Proposals".- > David Dorwin: the word "work" should be in the name or explanation to > identify that the proposals should be about what the community group should > work on.- Nell: Let's take this off line not to spend too much time on > this.- Brandon: A couple of things to talk off line- A explanation of the > process.- Code of conduct.- Brandon has been working on writing the spec > for the WebXR change during the holidays. Getting in a place where he is > happy with the formatting but wants feedback.- Trevor wants to talk about > the WebVR polyfill.- Trevor: Mozilla has been working on a polyfill for AR. > Would be good to move the repo under the W3C.- Nell: Is there any problem > from Google to move the repo to the immersive web org?- Jordan: It makes > sense to make the move but there is still not support for 2.0 (WebXR).- > David: Do we have a single polyfill repo or a webxr and webvr/carboard > one?- Trevor: There are 2 trains. The first revision with only VR and then > the new one with AR capabilities. It could be a fork or at least a > different repo.- David: It makes sense in the interim to have a single > polyfill repo where to have the shared options and where we can move the > current repo.- Brandon: Jordan and Brandon will work on how to move the > repo to the new structure.- Jordan: Will there be multiple polyfills for > multiple versions at the moment?- Brandon: Take it on a case by case basis. > Start with one and decide as needs arise (like a very AR focused one if > needed).- Update on input- Brandon: We had an input proposal and found > incompatibilities with other APIs and decided to wait until this issues are > resolved or figured out. Chrome is eager to provide WebXR to developers. > Would like not to have to sit on the API waiting. Proposal: There was an > initial simple API = point and click. It should support all the devices and > input mechanisms (including Hololens hand gesture). It should not provide > incompatibilities. The idea would be to provide just that simple > functionality as we foresee that it will be most likely future proof.- > Nell: MS is thinking on the same terms. Get the gamepad as a fallback > (although it does not have support for coordinate systems and it would need > another extension). Worried about developers getting tangled in using the > API in the wrong way. It is problematic not offering anything though. > Really eager to see what Brandon has in mind to make public.- Brandon: > Shared the same concerns.- Ada: It would be interesting to show the > potential API (even more if it can be polyfilled) and get something to > work. Devs will get excited about using it. Deprecated APIs is not the best > option.- Joshua Marinacci: Devs hate if something is abandoned with no > replacement. As long as people feel that there is a plan, they feel that > there is progress.- Nell: Let's make a proposal on this.- Brandon: Will > have something soon.- Kip: What about a higher level API even? Something > where the browser does all the heavy lifting and just provides the final > location of the collision. Something that could orthogonal.- Brandon: That > is the direction of the proposal. Something that does not provide low level > access but provides actions.- Ada: Could be tied to DOM based events > (declarative).- In the WebGL call it was brought up that instead of using > FrameBuffers as the WebXR API is proposing, if it would be better to expose > a texture array directly to WebGL 2.0 contexts. - Rafael: Brandon, does > WebGL 2.0 have everything needed to do this? Will it provide better > performance?- Brandon: Multiview comes again and again in the WebGL calls. > They’re concerned about the current plan to use an “opaque” framebuffer. > Can this be exposed using the most basic primitives possible? The problem > is that WebGL 1.0 does not provide these functionalities.- Rafael: > Multiview is optional. Once you use it, you have to use it. Once is > available devs will like to use it. The proposal now is to have a texture > array and the browser and the API to decide which to use for each eye.- One > problem with the opaque framebuffer proposal is that it doesn’t allow you > to mix multiview and non-multiview rendering. It’s all-or-nothing.- > Brandon: I am willing to drop the multiview flag with WebGL 1.0.- Some > concern about taking it that far.- Brandon: Let's take this discussion > offline.- Link to the multiview extension by the Khronos group: > https://www.khronos.org/registry/OpenGL/extensions/OVR/OVR_multiview_multisampled_render_to_texture.txt > <https://www.khronos.org/registry/OpenGL/extensions/OVR/OVR_multiview_multisampled_render_to_texture.txt>* > > Regards, > Iker > > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Kearwood Kip Gilbert <kgilbert@mozilla.com > > wrote: > >> I’ve taken some [redundant] notes as well from the meeting. Copying here >> in case they are useful. >> >> >> >> 2018-01-09 WebXR Community Group Call >> >> - Brandon (Google) >> >> >> - meet.google.com is not ideal because it doesn't work with every >> browser. May switch to alternative. >> - First call of new year >> - Ask if any vendors have updates - None, on holidays >> - Would like to set up another immersive web repo >> >> >> - Talked about it as an incubator / ideas repo >> - need name. "Ideas", "incubation" , "proposed work", >> "playground", "sandbox", "Emerging Concepts", "Work Proposals", "RFCs" >> - Will be a place to bootstrap ideas >> - Brandon prefers to be more along purpose of "proposals" >> - Vote for name offline >> - readme in repro to contain explainer of process >> >> >> - Code of conduct for entire org would be good >> >> >> - Maybe a separate repo, that individual repos can point to >> >> >> - Over the christmas/new years break Brandon spent time working on >> input proposal >> >> >> - 30% of spec text in place. >> - Figuring out what verbiage would come along the spec >> - Would like feedback on how spec is shaping up. >> >> >> - Trevor (Mozilla) >> >> >> - WebXR Polyfill >> - Should make repo under the w3c.org? >> - Should split repos that convert between different versions? (1.1 >> => 2.0, 2.0 => 1.1, fallback to "cardboard", fallback to "fake webxr" etc) >> - Should move to immersive web repo? >> - Have a single polyfill repo? >> >> >> - Two trains: VR and AR experimental features >> - Fork or separate repo? >> - Will have common code between each polyfill type, so should >> be single repo. >> - Consensus: Use one repo. >> >> >> - Brandon and Jordan collaborating after call to coordinate moving >> polyfill under immersive web repo >> - Jordan: Branches may work well >> >> >> - Brandon >> >> >> - Short term input proposals >> - Related to another API that has not yet been released, can't >> talk too much yet >> - Backing off on earlier input proposal until we find out what the >> unreleased API will be >> - Would like something short term to ship earlier with WebXR >> - Subset of input proposal, "select" and pointing, can be used >> earlier >> - Allow use of "gamepad extensions" until other unreleased API is >> finished >> - Nell / Microsoft: Existing gamepad API extension would need to >> be modified due to coordinate systems if used before unreleased API is ready >> - Ada: Implement something that could be polyfilled later >> - Joshua: Should show that API is not being abandoned, let people >> know that there will be a future even with transition plan needed. >> - Kip: >> >> >> - Perhaps we can implement a higher level API that compliments rather >> than replaces the future lower-level API >> - 3 options: >> >> >> - 1. Browser raycast against depth buffer from last submitted frame, >> returns hit in the screen space coordinate system >> - 2. Describe location of targets in the webvr API, get >> events with target identified back, rather than specific coordinate (could >> be vertex information or pick-buffer) >> - 3. Add ability to display DOM elements composited with >> WebXR scene, allow events to fire on those DOM elements using regular click >> events >> >> >> - Brandon likes the direction, but needs thought to determine what >> could be done in shorter timeline >> >> >> - Rafael >> >> >> - Do we have everything we need from WebGL 2 for WebXR? >> - ie. Multiview >> - Can we maybe expose this in WebGL 2 as an actual texture array? >> - Maybe eliminate opaque framebuffers? >> - Once using multiview, must be used everywhere >> - Multiview limits antialiasing >> >> >> - Artem: >> https://www.khronos.org/registry/OpenGL/extensions/OVR/OVR_multiview_multisampled_render_to_texture.txt >> - Proposal is that you render to your texture arrays. Specific >> indexes would be used for left, right eyes. >> - Support WebGL 1 with Side-by-side and require texture arrays for >> WebGL 2? >> - Brandon: Drop multiview for WebGL 1? >> - Rafael: If we do WebGL 1, then do it well. >> - Next meeting in two weeks >> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Kearwood “Kip” Gilbert >> >> >> >> *From: *'Brandon Jones' via webvr-internal >> <webvr-internal@googlegroups.com> >> *Sent: *January 8, 2018 2:41 PM >> *To: *public-webvr@w3.org >> *Subject: *[webvr-internal] WebXR call agenda, Jan 9th 2018 >> >> >> >> First call of the new year! We've had a long break due to the holidays, >> so I expect there will be a fair amount that people want to cover. As >> usual, please respond with any items you would like to have added to the >> agenda. >> >> >> >> *Call date:* Tuesday Jan 9th (and every other Tuesday thereafter) >> >> *Call time:* 1:00 PM PST for one hour >> >> *Call in number:* +1 319 332 7047 <(319)%20332-7047> >> >> *PIN:* 9744# >> >> >> >> *Call Agenda Items:* >> >> - Details of "Ideas" repo creation (Including name, explainer, code >> of conduct, etc.) >> - Progress on WebXR Device API spec >> - WebXR polyfill >> - Short-term input solutions >> >> As this is only the second call to use a new call-in system (Google Meet) >> we'd continue to appreciate any feedback on difficulties joining the call. >> >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> --Brandon Jones >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "webvr-internal" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to webvr-internal+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to webvr-internal@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/webvr-internal/CAEGwwi3Xc7aJSFzt%3Dq%2BbiQM07VsAkNxHOOxSyc7uj2R8HjMeDA%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/webvr-internal/CAEGwwi3Xc7aJSFzt%3Dq%2BbiQM07VsAkNxHOOxSyc7uj2R8HjMeDA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2018 23:40:26 UTC