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

Re: [Public WebGL] Volume Textures

>all of the extensions there are available on at least one OpenGL ES implementation on mobile devices (iPhone).


Why does the above matter if WebGL is never going to be available on iPhone/iPad/AppleTV?  Why don't we focus on what IS available?

We won't make much progress if we keep re-debating the same topics again and again. It's always been clear that we want WebGL content to be readily viewable on mobile devices, see for example http://blog.vlad1.com/2009/12/01/webgl-goes-mobile/ and that involves making sure that WebGL doesn't rely on features that aren't widely available in cell phones.

The iPhone/iPad might not support WebGL content today, but that's not something we want to set in stone. On the contrary we want to keep it as easy as possible for Apple to fix.

Moreover, WebGL is readily available on other cell phones, which have the same kind of embedded GPUs with similar limitations.



On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com> wrote:

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.


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