[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Public WebGL] Proposals for two new WebGL extensions
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Chris Marrin <email@example.com>
I'm glad these have been added to the registry. It will put to rest the debate about real vs. obfuscated renderer info. But I think the specs should make more clear what is meant by "privileged code in the browser". This isn't a concept that exists from a standard's standpoint.
Perhaps a sentence like:
The extension shall be available only to content determined to be privileged by some user agent specific means.
would make it a bit more clear?
Thanks for the advice. I've updated the specs.