I'm glad these have been added to the registry. It will put to rest the debate about real vs. obfuscated renderer info. But I think the specs should make more clear what is meant by "privileged code in the browser". This isn't a concept that exists from a standard's standpoint.
On Oct 12, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Mo, Zhenyao wrote:
> Thanks Ken. I've updated the draft for the wrong name in the IDL and the issue resolved.
> So I added the two extensions to the WebGL extension registry:
> WEBGL_debug_renderer_info: extension #6
> WEBGL_debug_shaders: extension #7
> They are ready to be implemented. Thanks for all the feedbacks.
Perhaps a sentence like:
The extension shall be available only to content determined to be privileged by some user agent specific means.
would make it a bit more clear?