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

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

You know, it's a little absurd that we're getting so worked up about a single comment from Microsoft. What's happened, in essence, is that Sylvain jumped on the mailing list and said:

"We don't want to support GLSL and we don't really want to explain why"

And everyone else goes a little nutty because of it. Isn't it reasonable to respond with "Great, we'll discuss legitimate issues as they are raised but until you provide us with some specific problems we're going to ignore you?"

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Fabrice Robinet <cmg473@motorola.com> wrote:
I believe the discussion would get more constructive if the focus was more about features/use cases than formalism (and rhetoric...).
Insisting that a single shading language be defined by the standard is hardly rhetoric, it's common sense. I'm not particularly attached to GLSL. If Microsoft has a better idea that they would like to convince everybody of to use that's fine by me. I'll leave the hashing out of whose idea gets to make the new CSS Shading Shading Language up to the experts. I'm not interested in giving any comment on that and not qualified. I do insist however that this be discussed under the premises that the outcome is a *single* shading language everybody agrees on.