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

Re: [Public WebGL] WEBKIT_ extensions



On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:20 PM, James Robinson <jamesr@google.com> wrote:
Mozilla should not ship anything with a WEBKIT prefix. ÂIf you want to ship something with a vendor-specific prefix use your own vendor name, not someone else's. ÂThat way lies utter madness.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that following OpenGL's well-established model is "madness".

I do tend to agree that WebGL implementations should follow the meaning of prefixes in the Web platform, rather than OpenGL. The layering (well above hardware) and development process of these extensions matches the web's development model much more closely than OpenGL drivers.

> Churn around this has a cost: the tests would need to be updated to handle
> multiple extension names, etc.

It's the same cost that everyone already deals with for prefixed Web APIs.

> To resolve this once and for all, I propose that we introduce immediately WEBGL_EXT_lose_context, without waiting for the next conference call. Any objections?

This doesn't resolve anything; it just puts it off until the next extension, where the discussion will start over again. -1 to rushing ahead in order to avoid settling the broader question.

--
Glenn Maynard