[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Public WebGL] Re: [filters] Shading language recommendation
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:53 AM, David Sheets <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> While Microsoft has no objection to defining how the feature works for UAs
>>> that choose GL SL ES as defined by Web GL 1.0, we object to its normative
>> Can you explain why you object? You mention below what you'd prefer, but don't
>> provide reasoning.
>> The informative section related to media codecs is there because there are
>> well-known IP issues around that technology. As far as I am aware, this does
>> not apply in the case of shading languages.
>> Also, don't you (Microsoft) agree there is a significant penalty if we don't require
>> a single shading language? What is it in particular about GLSL that you object
> CSS Shaders as well as Filter Effects never required GLSL (on base of WebGL), but it is the recommended shading language. Therefore I don't share Sylvain's concerns that an implementation must support GLSL.
> I think it is a good idea to think about future versions of GLSL as well. Therefore adding a feature string that helps the UA to decide if a shader is supported or not, and provide a fullback shader doesn't sound like a bad idea.
Thinking of future versions under the premise of one standardized syntax, and future standardized syntax [OK] because friendly to web authors.
Proposing to keep syntax undefined and let everybody cook his own [NOT OK], because not friendly to web authors and just another way to break the web.