Arguably if you wait for other vendors to expose VR before you do it, you'll end up having to implement a sub-standard proprietary API like you did with Web Audio. If you're first to the market (even with a prototype that's preffed off), you can exert a lot more pressure on how things turn out, IMO. As long as the web facing part of the API isn't tied to the open-but-not-free Oculus API, you can always swap out the underlying parts later while continuing to reap the benefits of being able to take design leadership on VR.
As for whether VR is actually relevant, that's a tough question, but the fact that Facebook was willing to drop an absurd amount of money on them tells you that they certainly think it will be important. On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoi...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2014-04-14 18:41 GMT-04:00 Vladimir Vukicevic <vladim...@gmail.com>: > >> 3. We do nothing. This option won't happen: I'm tired of not having Gecko >> and Firefox at the forefront of web technology in all aspects. >> > > Is VR already "Web technology" i.e. is another browser vendor already > exposing this, or would we be the first to? > > If VR is not yet a thing on the Web, could you elaborate on why you think > it should be? > > I'm asking because the Web has so far mostly been a common denominator, > conservative platform. For example, WebGL stays at a distance behind the > forefront of OpenGL innovation. I thought of that as being intentional. Is > VR a departure from this, or is it already much more mainstream than I > thought it was? > > Benoit > _______________________________________________ > 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
