On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:20 AM, John Davis <
jdavis@pcprogramming.com> wrote:
> Wait how long? Can't we at least start the Angle work? I'm guessing the
> changes will take a few months, and then there will be testing.
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Mo, Zhenyao <
zhenyao@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Benoit Jacob <
bjacob@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >> On Mar 24, 2011, at 4:18 AM, John Davis wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In the meantime, is there any chance we could add an extension to
>> >> > WebGL and Angle to support volume textures for the rather large use
>> >> > case of Chrome and FireFox? This is very low hanging fruit that will
>> >> > add considerable bang on the fragment shader side.
>> >>
>> >> Let's be careful about what we call "low hanging fruit". WebGL
>> >> attempts to allow content to be written across a wide range of
>> >> hardware. That's why we based the spec on OpenGL ES 2.0 rather than
>> >> desktop OpenGL. If you look at the WebGL extension registry
>> >> (
http://www.khronos.org/registry/webgl/extensions/), all of the
>> >> extensions there are available on at least one OpenGL ES
>> >> implementation on mobile devices (iPhone).
>> >>
>> >> That doesn't mean we can't discuss other extensions (like this one).
>> >> But I would be very against adding any and all extensions just because
>> >> they exist on some driver in some version of OpenGL on some platform.
>> >> I even agree that 3D textures are available in a majority of desktop
>> >> OpenGL implementations. And GL_OES_texture_3D is defined for OpenGL
>> >> ES. But I don't know of any current implementations of OpenGL ES that
>> >> support it.
>> >>
>> >> My concern is that WebGL will get fragmented and that authors will
>> >> start using extensions that are available on a small number of
>> >> implementations degrading the WebGL experience for everyone else. I
>> >> don't think we want to go there at this early stage of development.
>> >
>> > For what it's worth, I am agreeing with Chris on this matter.
>> >
>> > To put it in more abstract terms: being a web specification, WebGL
>> > should (try hard to) be universally implementable.
>> >
>> > Benoit
>>
>> Web is never universal. For example, many Korean website build around
>> ActiveX, and it's only for Windows/IE users. Also, we all know if a
>> web is built in Flash, certain devices won't display it.
>>
>> Again, I think we should wait, but at certain point when webgl is well
>> known and well perceived, adding kicking ass but none-universal
>> extensions should be on the agenda. Otherwise we are limiting
>> possibilities and holding back potential business/markets.
>>
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------
>> > You are currently subscribed to
public_webgl@khronos.org.
>> > To unsubscribe, send an email to
majordomo@khronos.org with
>> > the following command in the body of your email:
>> > unsubscribe public_webgl
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>