On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Chris Marrin <firstname.lastname@example.org
On Dec 13, 2010, at 9:28 AM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
Having this extension improves the testability of the browser's lost
context implementation. It would even add value to your wrapper by
exercising the real code paths the WebGL implementation would use.
I would like to add this extension to the registry and support it in
Chromium. Vlad, Benoit, is there any interest from Mozilla in
supporting this extension to exercise your implementation? Tim, how
about Opera? If there isn't interest from any other vendor then we can
just use the CHROMIUM_ prefix, but I think it would be useful more
I'm interested in it, too. My only thing I'm against is making it normative. I don't mind it having a CHROMIUM_ prefix since you guys created it. I believe there are plenty of NV extensions supported in ATI drivers. But we could also make some sort prefix that means we all agree, but it's not normative. I think WEBGL_ prefixes should be reserved for normative extensions.
To reiterate, just because an extension has the WEBGL_ prefix doesn't
mean that it is mandatory that all implementations support it. I don't
know what you mean by a normative extension.
There was discussion about having another prefix for "experimental"
but cross-vendor extensions, but I think that's overkill.