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

Re: [Public WebGL] gl.getShaderPrecisionFormat



On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com> wrote:
> We'll all have to discuss this once 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 actually ship. The
> situation will be made more complex with the forthcoming "WebGL level
> 2" draft spec incorporating ES 3.0 functionality. At that point we may
> want to consider a different scheme for separating the two major
> versions of the spec.

Once 1.0.1 ships, 1.0 will mean the spec preceding 1.0.1. Is it
possible to rename 1.0 to 1.0.0?

Or is there some sort of "1.0 compliant" issue which allows vendors to
comply to any test suite/spec in the 1.0.x line?

It seems that "1.0 compliant" is impossible. Only compliance to
specific revision snapshots appears possible due to unknown unknowns.

David

> -Ken
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:27 PM, David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, this was an unfortunate and accidental omission from the 1.0
>>> spec. It will be fixed in the 1.0.1 and subsequent versions of the
>>> spec, hopefully to be unblocked and released very soon.
>>
>> Is it the policy of the WG to track spec versions to their most
>> up-to-date revision?
>>
>> That is, for the specs being published with
>> [major].[minor].[revision], do revision increments really indicate
>> solely revisions and minor interface extensions?
>>
>> I ask because it seems that if this is the case, the spec known as
>> "1.0" is actually "1.0.0" and any references to "1.0" should point to
>> the latest spec in the "1.0" lineage.
>>
>> This is distinct from the "latest" branch because if the latest branch
>> moves to 1.1.x (or 2.0.x) then 1.0 will continue to track 1.0.y where
>> y is the largest value with a corresponding revision.
>>
>> This may help cut down confusion regarding the revisions. If a dev
>> wants to refer to a specific revision, they can always still use the
>> dotted triple. What do you think?
>>
>> David
>>
>>> -Ken
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Ben Vanik <benvanik@google.com> wrote:
>>>> Are you looking at an old version of the spec?
>>>>
>>>> It's in here:
>>>> http://www.khronos.org/registry/webgl/specs/latest/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I've noticed that gl.getShaderPrecisionFormat is not documented in the
>>>>> standard, yet it is implemented by both chrome and firefox. The enumerants
>>>>> it relies on (such as gl.HIGH_FLOAT) are in the standard, but aren't used by
>>>>> any function.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose it's missing because of an editing oversight?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>

-----------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------