LGTM
-Ekr
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 2:59 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> OK, here's a draft of Tantek's points in a form that I think we
> could submit. Please let me know if there are things you think I
> should change:
>
> -
> We support the idea of bringing WebVR into a working group at the
OK, here's a draft of Tantek's points in a form that I think we
could submit. Please let me know if there are things you think I
should change:
-
We support the idea of bringing WebVR into a working group at the W3C.
However, bringing work that has been incubating in a community group (CG) i
Thanks, Tantek! I like this response. I have not been able to reach
google/microsoft but will inform them of this intention.
To reinforce point #1, I'd add that WebVR is currently under TAG review
(see https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/185 ). Standardization
is definitely the intende
Given that we have a day left to respond to this poll, we should begin
writing up at least a draft answer with known facts that we can
iterate on as we get more information.
Rough draft WebVR proposed charter response points for consideration:
1. Timing is good. We think WebVR is ready for a WG
I'll follow up more with the chairs of the community group (they just had a
face to face earlier this week and I presume it came up). The last bit that
I heard is consistent with what Dan mentioned - the concern is not around
standardization but that neither the chairs nor the browser vendors nor
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Daniel Veditz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 3:51 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>
> > I still think opposing this charter because the group should still
> > be in the incubation phase would be inconsistent with our shipping
> > and promotion of WebVR.
> >
>
> I ag
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 3:51 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> I still think opposing this charter because the group should still
> be in the incubation phase would be inconsistent with our shipping
> and promotion of WebVR.
>
I agree that would be exceptionally odd and require a well reasoned
argume
On Wednesday 2017-07-12 12:20 -0700, L. David Baron 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 implement
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) a
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
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:
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
I wo
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 t
13 matches
Mail list logo
