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

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

Florian Bösch 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.

It's at least plausible that one could argue that GLSL is unsuitable as
"The One True Shader Language" for CSS - maybe there are things that CSS
needs that GLSL can't cope with.  I have no problem with debating that
position if there are strong technical reasons why GLSL is unsuitable for

The issue is whether we'll wind up with some browsers that only support
GLSL and others that only support IESL (or whatever it's called).  That's
just nasty.

If GLSL is somehow unsuitable for CSS (I don't see why that would be...but
then I could be wrong) then it's unsuitable for everyone and we need to
figure out a common standard that will work and have every browser support
it rather than a patchwork quilt of support for different languages.

 -- Steve

You are currently subscribed to public_webgl@khronos.org.
To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo@khronos.org with
the following command in the body of your email:
unsubscribe public_webgl