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

Re: [Public WebGL] Just thought I'd pass this on

As stated many times by Chris, It's legitimate from Microsoft to raise concern, this is a place for discussion.

But if Microsoft concern only state that GLSL should not be the only one shader language for CSS Shader.
Then it is not clear where that leaves us. 

It looks like it is high time to stop speculating / inferring about what Sylvain means, but this requires some of this help. 
Without elaborating on clear/concrete  reasons/use cases to have CSS Shader support something else than GLSL it's hard to refrain from thinking that the root reason is not something like "not invented by microsoft".

I believe the discussion would get more constructive if the focus was more about features/use cases than formalism (and rhetoric...).

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com> wrote:
So posting all your bile on the fx list not enough is it? :-)

On Aug 21, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok, so let me get this straight:

Everytime that the community of browser vendors comes up with a single standard to solve something, Microsoft comes up with a slightly different but incompatible flavor of it making web developers life a living hell. Previous examples include:

- CSS alpha via filters
- audio codecs
- video codecs
- spdy
- WebRTC codecs

They also steadfastly refuse to implement things like WebGL for reasons only they themselves can fathom. And now, they're just proposing to add another one to the list of web-sabotaging technologies: CSS shaders.
And they don't just stop at the Web either, they extend this behavior to other standards (like word processor standards) as well. 

Sylvain, as a representative of Microsoft, has been extremely civil (unlike you) in his objection to the required shading language. He's raised the issue and now we're discussing it. As you can see from the thread, there are many of us arguing in favor of a required shading language and are now attempting to understand the nature of the objection. 

I don't think he is attempting to sabotage anything. And I think Microsoft is well aware of the fact that the days of going their own way with their web browser is a thing of the past. I'm sure they're struggling with the notion of having to support GLSL even now. By mentioning ANGLE and the fact that WebGL is running successfully on top of Direct3D, we're trying to help them understand that they can support GLSL in a non-threatening way. 

I don't know if that will change their minds. But I do know that your anti-Microsoft rants aren't helping anything.

This is entirely unacceptable behavior. If they don't want to implement something they can just do that. There is no need to continuously sabotage the web with all these intentional incompatibilities. We've seen this behavior from Microsoft for a long time now. And need I remember anybody how Microsoft managed to sabotage 3D on the web in the first place in the 90ties at the time they developed DirectX and which lead to their retreat from the Khronos boards.

There is certainly unacceptable behavior happening on the fx list, but it's not coming from Microsoft!
Spare me, you're reacting to tone, I'm reacting to content. I'm not civil. I don't see civility required when I see an approaching trainwreck. Appropriate response: panic.