On 02.08.2017 14:39, Blair MacIntyre wrote:
It’s used for panoramic image viewing (orient the pano with the camera movement), and google street view uses it for similar motion control.
Okay, why not adding a generic interface for controlling the virtual view direction ? So, the user/operator could decide how to control it (keys, mouse gestures, external 3d positioning devices, etc). Anyways, I wonder how the current approach would work at all with non-portable devices. And the idea of having to physically turn around just to see different perspectives seems really weird to me.
Regarding security: perhaps it is, I have seen discussions of this sort.
Allowing webites to track individual movements, IMHO qualifies more than just an "perhaps". Do you feel well with the idea of being tracked with every single footstep ? > But, it would seem that ship sailed when the W3C approved it, and
now it’s common and assumed and relied upon. Removing it in Firefox would render Firefox incompatible with a growing use of the web,
Okay, we now know that was a wrong assumption - but even it was really was approved: does that mean we have to support anything that some beaurocrats find a good idea ? In the past, there have been lots of standards that peopel stopped supporting / complying to, because they turned out to be a bad idea. I still remember when leaded fuel was standard - meanwhile it's even prohibited (except for a few old timers). I also remember when IPX or DecNet have been de-facto standards. Flash has been a de-facto standard, it was a security nightmare, and it took a long time to get rid of it. What would you do if W3C decided that web applications shall be allowed to execute arbitrary binaries with user's full privileges ? (actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Goverments making such laws ...)
especially mobile (including Windows tablets).
What would be the actual impact ? A few websites that rely on that won't work completely anymore. Actually, haven't seen single one yet. Is it okay, to sacrify the security of all users just for the joy of that small minority ?
This might be a discussion the security team wants to have, I guess:
> is the Firefox team worried enough about the threats opened by this > API to justify breaking a large class of applications, and making
Firefoxunusable for AR/VR moving forward.
Suggestive question. And implies that this "large class of applications" actually exists already. I'd prefer asking: is it okay to sacrifice security for some niche features ? OTOH, I'd also question whether that AR/VR really belongs into a browser, and what's the costs and risks of that. (some countries already started legislation against AR, most notably Pokemon Go, for good reasons ...). Certainly, AR/VR has it's use in some industrial applications or entertainment machines, but I doubt Browsers and HTML are particular well suited for those jobs. --mtx _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
