For what it's worth the way that the JS/DOM bindings work in most (all?) browsers require every exposed function to be defined and implemented explicitly -- it would not be possible for an implementation to automate the exposure of an arbitrary set of unknown extensions.
On Jun 3, 2010, at 4:47 AM, Steve Baker wrote:
> Vladimir Vukicevic wrote:
>> Hm, I thought we didn't have this which is where the confusion came from, but looks like Chris put it in a while ago:
>> Maybe it's just missing a sentence or two at the end explaining that extensions are WebGL specific, and if WebGL is built on top of an underlying OpenGL driver, that driver's extensions will not necessarily be exposed?
> IMHO, it is essential that WebGL does NOT expose underlying driver
> extensions by default. The reason being one of security.