On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Kenneth Russell <email@example.com>
I strongly feel that it is necessary to allow multiple vendors to prototype a WebGL extension under the same name -- and not with different vendor prefixes -- before it is ratified. (In the WebGL working group,Âwe haven't yet decided upon a formal process for ratifying WebGL extensions -- so far, consensus in the working group has sufficed.)
For this reason I don't support requiring a browser vendor prefix before a WebGL extension is made official. If necessary we can put this to a formal vote in the working group.
You didn't give a reason, though.Â Why do you feel this is necessary?Â Browsers prototype web APIs by each putting them under their own prefix.Â WebGL is a web API, too.Â What's special about WebGL for it to not follow the same conventions as everything else?