[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Public WebGL] Just thought I'd pass this on
There are really two clear cases here:
1) That MS are saying that IN ADDITION TO supporting GLSL, browsers should
be allowed to support additional shader language(s). Implying that you
can choose to do all of your website design using only GLSL if you choose
to do so.
2) That MS are saying that INSTEAD OF supporting GLSL, browsers should be
allowed to support something else. Implying that to develop a true
cross-platform website, you'd have to write and test your shaders in two
or more different shader languages.
If it's (1) then we have to ask why we need these additional languages if
every browser already has to support GLSL? Can't whatever fancy features
that these languages have be better supported as GLSL extensions?
If it's (2) (which I believe is MS's current position) then why can't they
support GLSL using the same implementation that they'll use to support
WebGL? The clear implication of this position is that they aren't going
to implement GLSL in the browser at all - which has obvious ramifications
for WebGL support in IE.
Subtly different requirements...very different consequences.
Fabrice Robinet wrote:
> 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
> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Chris Marrin <email@example.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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> with their web browser is a thing of the past. I'm sure they're
>>> with the notion of having to support GLSL even now. By mentioning ANGLE
>>> 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
>>> the web with all these intentional incompatibilities. We've seen this
>>> behavior from Microsoft for a long time now. And need I remember
>>> how Microsoft managed to sabotage 3D on the web in the first place in
>>> 90ties at the time they developed DirectX and which lead to their
>>> 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
>> I don't see civility required when I see an approaching trainwreck.
>> Appropriate response: panic.
You are currently subscribed to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe, send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the following command in the body of your email: