[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Public WebGL] WEBKIT_ extensions
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Kenneth Russell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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, we 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. Why do you feel this is necessary? Browsers prototype web APIs by each putting them under their own prefix. WebGL is a web API, too. What's special about WebGL for it to not follow the same conventions as everything else?