On Dec 11, 2009, at 2:27 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
Date: December 11, 2009 1:20:47 AM PST
Subject: Re: WebGL | The 3D Canvas Context for HTML
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:47:07 +0100, Arun Ranganathan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I've been trying to cut my mailing list subscriptions recently so hopefully someone can forward this as appropriate.
The draft appears to use outdated Web IDL syntax. It also uses features, e.g. NameDeleter that are controversial with TC39 so you may want to reconsider using those.
I'd like to see more details on how our syntax is out of date and controversial
It also seems that a bunch of the new objects introduced should really be part of ECMAScript instead. E.g. all the new typed array interfaces.
I'm not sure what this means. Does the poster believe these should be part of the ECMAScript spec, alongside Array and String? This seems too special purpose for that. Doesn't this same issue exist in the FileIO WG? Is there a reasonable place to put general purpose classes like these?
Some of the typedefs are scoped to WebGLRenderingContext but are in fact used all over the place.
I am starting to hate the typedefs. Should we just nuke them entirely?
Also, why is it WebGLRenderingContext and not CanvasRenderingContextWebGL which would be more consistent with the existing CanvasRenderingContext2D?
This was a conscious decision. It was done to give all the WebGL API's a common prefix. I think that decision is still a good one.
It does not seem to be defined when the event defined at the end of the specification is actually dispatched. The name of the event is also not defined, just the interface it implements. Also, if more than one resource is lost, which one does "resource" return? And why do you need the context attribute? Isn't it already clear that the event is for the WebGL context?
Yes, this is a new feature. I will try to shore up the descriptions.