[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Public WebGL] WEBKIT_ extensions



The purpose of this wasn't to steal the WebKit name or anything but to make it easy to for developers to just use one extension name instead of having fallbacks for each vendor. We went ahead with WEBKIT_lose_context originally because the Khronos conformance suite uses that specific name for all of its tests. We're already in the process of moving to MOZ_lose_context, but hopefully the name will be changed so that this isn't something vendor-specific. Thanks for understanding.

Regards,

--
Doug

On 11/3/11 4:20 PM, James Robinson wrote:


On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Benoit Jacob <bjacob@mozilla.com> wrote:

I would like this to be discussed in the next conference call: are there any objections to renaming/cloning WEBKIT_lose_context as WEBGL_EXT_lose_context ?

It now seems that we're going to keep the WEBKIT_lose_context name in the interim.

Mozilla should not ship anything with a WEBKIT prefix.  If you want to ship something with a vendor-specific prefix use your own vendor name, not someone else's.  That way lies utter madness.

- James
 


Benoit


On 01/11/11 10:18 PM, Mark Callow wrote:
For the other APIs the convention is to use EXT for multi-vendor but not
Khronos ratified extensions. That would seem to be appropriate here too.
It is nuts to have different names for the same extension in different
browsers.

So the name of the extension would be EXT_lose_context. The name string
for enabling it would be WEBGL_EXT_lose_context as extensions always
start with the API name.

Regards

   -Mark



On 02/11/2011 02:51, Benoit Jacob wrote:

On 01/11/11 01:41 PM, Adrienne Walker wrote:
El día 31 de octubre de 2011 14:53, Benoit Jacob<bjacob@mozilla.com>
escribió:

In the case of WEBKIT_lose_context, since it is so simple and useful
for all
browsers, I would really like it to become WEBGL_lose_context. Does
anybody
object to that and what steps need to be taken to make that happen?

There was some previous discussion about this here:
http://www.khronos.org/webgl/public-mailing-list/archives/1012/threads.html#00092


At the time, there were reservations about adding the WEBGL tag
without more general approval or ratification from Khronos.

Thanks, I didn't remember this conversation. Since it seems to have
been such a large debate, for now we will just rename it to
MOZ_lose_context on our side until consensus for WEBGL_lose_context
happens.

Can I go ahead and add MOZ_lose_context to the registry?

I disagree with the arguments that WEBGL_lose_context is not needed as
it could be implemented in pure _javascript_. A big focus at the moment
is to get Web developers to care about contextlost/contextrestored
events. It would help if we could just point them to a
WEBGL_lose_context extension to test their app's behavior in all
supporting browsers, rather than having to use a shim for all WebGL
entry points.

Cheers,
Benoit



-enne


-----------------------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to public_webgl@khronos.org.
To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo@khronos.org with
the following command in the body of your email:
unsubscribe public_webgl
-----------------------------------------------------------



-----------------------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to public_webgl@khronos.org.
To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo@khronos.org with
the following command in the body of your email:
unsubscribe public_webgl
-----------------------------------------------------------