On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 2:55:53 PM UTC-8, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 3/1/17 5:03 PM, Kip Gilbert wrote: > > We have worked directly with the other WebVR platform implementers to > > ensure compatibility. > > OK, but what is the actual state of that compatibility? > > https://github.com/w3c/webvr/issues/197#issuecomment-283492774 and > https://github.com/w3c/webvr/issues/195#issuecomment-283493130 sure > sound like at least Brandon is not on board with those parts of the > current API, and he's one of the spec editors. I tend to agree with Brandon on this particular issue > > > We have regularly scheduled video calls and F2F meetings to improve the > > spec and remove any ambiguity. We have formed a W3C community working > > group. > > That's good. The question that bothers me is how this interacts with > the ship schedule. > > >> [1] For example, what does the VRFrameData constructor actually do? The > >> spec doesn't define it at all. Where is the VRPose inside supposed to > >> come from? What values will it contain? I filed > >> https://github.com/w3c/webvr/issues/195 on this, but note that I've spent > >> all of about 5 minutes skimming the spec and ran into this. I have _not_ > >> done a careful read looking for possible interop problems... > > > > VRFrameData is described as receiving the output of the > > VRDisplay.getFrameData function: > > Yes, but that's totally unrelated to my question about what the > _constructor_ does.... On the spec issue, I am working to make the initial values explicit as you have suggested: https://github.com/w3c/webvr/issues/195
This has not caused any issues with interoperability, as VRFrameData's values are not considered valid until after a call to VRDisplay.getFrameData initializes them and returns true indicating it was successful. Would this issue block release of WebVR in Firefox 54? _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
