|
Hello, Currently, the IDL for extensions speficies interfaces names in a way that forces compliant implementations to expose them on the global object. For instance: interface WEBGL_compressed_texture_atcThere is a concern about polluting the global object with arbitrarily many names that may not even be easy to trace back to WebGL for someone not versed in WebGL, for example OES_standard_derivatives. WebIDL has a provision for that: the [NoInterfaceObject] attribute. It is documented there: http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL/#NoInterfaceObject Do you agree that we should use it here? So we could add arbitrary extensions without having to worry about their names polluting the global namespace? If we agree on this, we should email public-script-coord@w3.org as asked for in the above link. That would make WebGL extensions "supplemental interfaces". In my limited understanding, the concern here is that [NoInterfaceObject] is a ECMAScript-specific feature. I may be missing something else though. The alternative, I guess, is to rename WebGL extension interfaces to something more cleanly namespaced, e.g.: OES_standard_derivatives -> WebGLExtensionStandardDerivatives EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic -> WebGLExtensionTextureFilterAnisotropic which is FWIW what we do in Mozilla's C++ implementation. Cheers, Benoit |