Yes they too are up to the vendor to implement as they see fit. So far I think the extensions are more or less parity between Firefox and Chrome, there's always a bit of competition to reach or surpass the featureset of the other vendor.
So, this means that even though an extension is proposed and accepted, it is still up to the vendor to implement it if they wish?
This seems possible for a vendor to not want to implement it and places the decision on them if they do or don't...hmmm, won't that create fragmentation in the future ???
That's a matter of much philosophical debate. The two proffered points of view are:
- Direct3D: "we should have one guaranteed baseline"
- OpenGL: "there is one guaranteed baseline, and extensions expose hardware functionality that cannot be offered by all"
I might point out that Direct3Ds "hiding" of hardware differences is not entirely watertight. It has also been a strength (on and off) for OpenGL to have an extension mechanism. Whatever the merits of the arguments, WebGL is a Khronos 3D standard modelled after OpenGL ES, which has made the decision to support extensions (itself modelled after OpenGL). There is some lively back and forth around what extensions are introduced to WebGL how with advocates of both camps, so I don't particularly worry.
Where do the WEBGL specific extensions go then? Are they still up to each vendor to implement how they see fit ?