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

Re: [Public WebGL] WEBKIT_ extensions




On Nov 17, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:

...
Glenn, to address your question further:

1. I feel that having multiple browsers implement the same prototype extension independently will expose ill-defined areas more quickly, and allow the extension and its conformance tests to converge more quickly.

2. Requiring a vendor prefix implies that there will be two nearly identical copies of the extension in the registry during its prototyping phase. Keeping them in sync will likely be my responsibility, and from a selfish perspective, I am opposed to having to do this work, which I consider useless.

I don't follow this reasoning. There would only ever be one proposal of a given extension, and its name would be the unprefixed name it is intended to have when ratified. There would never be a vendor specific proposal in the public wiki. If two vendors had different ideas about a given feature, I could imagine both submitting proposals with their take on that feature. In that case, each would need a different extension name and (presumably) each would implement their own proposal, complete with a vendor specific prefix.

But I don't think that's likely to happen. I think it's much more likely that, if two vendors had different ideas about the same feature, they'd hash out their differences and submit a single proposal. But even in that case, as I've said before, I think each vendor using their own prefix during development is the best approach.

-----
~Chris