[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 9:01 AM, David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't believe anyone is proposing an undefined syntax (unless you
count the bugs in GLSL).
Microsoft is proposing to not to fix the syntax so they can do their own.
Given the choice between no support in IE and support with a different
shading language, the latter is highly preferable.
I disagree. Given a choice of a standard that *is* a standard in the sense that it specifies how something works, so developers can use it in a consistent fashion is highly preferable to a "standard" that works differently everywhere. If Microsoft does not agree to "standardize" something, they should just come out and say so instead of sabotaging a standard.

Or perhaps you would like MS to implement something with the same
syntax as GLSL ES but with different semantics? That would be
absolutely terrible.
No, I don't want that. You're putting words in my mouth, I thought it is quite obvious, but what I (and absolutely *every* web author) wants is:
- A single standard
- With defined api/syntax
- With defined semantics
- Working everywhere the *same*
I fiercely, strongly, absolutely, vehemently, angrily object to "standards" that are intentionally crafted to sabotage these goals.
Florian, we must assume we have no direct influence in the language
forking. It will happen. To win, we have to accept it and make it
irrelevant. To accept it and make it irrelevant, we have to convince
everyone involved to do it in the most straightforward/integrated way.
If MS can be convinced to load a different language under a different
name through a very standard interface, sanity will have prevailed. MS
will do this shit anyway. How would we like to respond?
If Microsoft wants to do their own thing, they're free to do so. I am not in favor of sabotaging a standard (yet again) in order to appease Microsofts desire to claim to be "standards compatible" when in fact they perverted the purpose of the standard in the first place. If Microsoft/IE does not want to be standards compatible, that is *their* choice, and they should man up to stating "we don't care about that" instead of trying to look good by fooling us into giving into their maliciously scheming sabotaging of standards.

Let standards be standards, be real standards. They do not "define" the web, however they define a spirit of collaboration. Microsoft does clearly not want to "collaborate" so I don't see why the discussion of this standard should concern itself with the opinion of Microsoft.