Thanks for pointing that text out, Jet! Samsung Internet, Oculus Browser, Microsoft Edge, and Firefox have all either shipped or have plans to ship the released version of the WebVR API (see https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/01/mozilla-brings-virtual-reality-to-all-firefox-users/ for a table) and support it, even after the (non-breaking) work is done to evolve the API. I'll work with our colleagues to update the language there, since it's clearly inconsistent with our commitments. And the fact that, as David alludes to, not only are browser vendors shipping it, but major tool vendors and frameworks are relying on it. A-Frame content alone is downloaded more than 12 million times a month, and there's at least as much WebVR content out there that uses other frameworks or raw access to the API.
w.r.t. the "deprecated" vs. draft APIs, a hard constraint on the current effort is that there are no breaking changes and both versions can be supported side by side or from one to another via a polyfill. Our current plan is to implement one and support the other via polyfill, but other browser engines plan to support both natively. w.r.t. hardware vendors, I would expect them to participate more heavily in the OpenXR effort, which will define which of their hardware features will be exposed to all native VR applications. We hope to support to that in the future, but it will take time for all that to shake out. Fortunately, OSVR and OpenVR get us at least basic access to the majority of desktop VR devices, though mobile is currently still evolving and a bit more messy. - Lars On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Jet Villegas <jville...@mozilla.com> wrote: > There's a lot of maneuvering going on with all the WebVR browser vendors > about which VR hardware vendors will get "Tier 1" support. The support > matrix can get quite complex as more vendors come in, and many of these new > vendors will not be W3C members. It would be good to encourage a more > inclusive spec process that doesn't unfairly burden new entrants with > unnecessary bureaucracy. > > That said, I'm concerned about the ambiguity around specs like WebVR 1.1 > (which we're shipping in FF55). From the spec draft > <https://w3c.github.io/webvr/spec/1.1/>: > > *Deprecated API* > > > *The version of the WebVR API represented in this document is does not > represent the final shape of the API. While the API is being finalized > support for this version may temporarily be available in some browsers but > is expected to be replaced eventually.* > > The statement above is weird to me. While I do expect that APIs evolve > over time, just as most Web APIs do, it seems rather heavy-handed for the > spec editor to state ship/support policy for all the browser vendors. > Vendors may decide to support for this API long-term, or not support a 2.0 > API, or decide to work on 2.0 for a while but still allow for users to > build WebVR apps today. In any case, vendors are shipping to their release > channels, and we should have more rigor around what that means for > "experimental" features. > > --Jet > > > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:20 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> > wrote: > >> On Wednesday 2017-07-12 06:48 -0500, Lars Bergstrom wrote: >> > There is some contention in the WebVR community group around the >> submission >> > of this charter proposal, as there is currently no public support from >> any >> > of the implementers in making this transition away from a community >> group: >> > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webvr/2017Jul/0056.html >> >> That's a little confusing to me given that there has been a good bit >> of movement towards shipping WebVR in release versions of browsers. >> >> Shipping things to the release channel (as opposed to just users on >> nightly/beta channels or users who turn on experimental features) >> means that Web content could start depending on the features at any >> time, which means we might be stuck with them in their current form. >> >> That suggests (if my understanding of the state of shipping to >> release users is correct) that it's likely time for the >> standardization process to also admit that it's no longer just >> experimenting, but actually shipping real stuff. >> >> -David >> >> > I would certainly not support at this time and, depending on the >> > conversations in that group and timing of the below deadline, may >> suggest >> > that we oppose. >> > - Lars >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:23 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> >> wrote: >> > >> > > The W3C is proposing a new charter for: >> > > >> > > WebVR Working Group >> > > https://www.w3.org/2017/07/vr-wg-charter.html >> > > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new- >> work/2017Jul/0002.html >> > > >> > > Mozilla has the opportunity to send support, comments, or objections >> > > through Friday, August 18. If this is work that we want to see >> > > happen at W3C, we should explicitly support it; if there are things >> > > we think should be different about the charter, this is the time to >> > > say so. >> > > >> > > Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should >> > > say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should >> > > support or oppose it. >> >> -- >> π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π >> π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π >> Before I built a wall I'd ask to know >> What I was walling in or walling out, >> And to whom I was like to give offense. >> - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dev-platform mailing list >> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform >> >> > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
