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

Re: [Public WebGL] Restricting WebGL exposure of OES_depth_texture





On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Ben Vanik <benvanik@google.com> wrote:
As a developer having to deal with extensions, I'd prefer that the browser vendors pick a behavior and stick with that for awhile. If no major use cases can be thought of for the missing functionality when running under ANGLE, I'd much rather have only that one extension to check for/query/handle in my tool chain. If both were exposed right now it'd essentially be fragmenting on platform (browsers with ANGLE, aka Windows, vs. those without, aka everything else), and that's annoying.


On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Mark Callow <callow_mark@hicorp.co.jp> wrote:


On 18/05/2012 06:58, Brandon Jones wrote:
 I can see the confused Stack Overflow posts already if there were two nearly-identical extensions...
As opposed to confusion caused by having 2 nearly identical extensions sharing the same name?

I think the names should be different so that implementations not using Angle can expose the real OES_depth_texture extension.

Regards

    -Mark


I propose we make a new extension ANGLE_depth_texture or WEBGL_depth_texture and deprecate the old one OES_depth_texture.  We can add OES_depth_texture back if and when it actually is compatible with the real OES_depth_texture and most browser has a path to get there.

Given that ANGLE has, up until now, not supported this and given that AFAICT no browsers have exposed OES_depth_texture there's no reason not to change it.  OES_depth_texture arguably has a specific meaning. If we keep the name OES_depth_texture then searching for it will bring up the OpenGL ES specification which will be confusing for developers if WebGL's implementation is different.