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

Re: [Public WebGL] gl.getShaderPrecisionFormat



On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:38 PM, David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Correct, there is no notion that a WebGL implementation is conformant
to all 1.0.x releases of the specification. Conformance is established
by passing a specific version of the conformance tests.

WebGL 1.0 won't be renamed to 1.0.0. The version number is embedded in
the URL ( https://www.khronos.org/registry/webgl/specs/1.0/ ) and
changing it would break links.

-Ken


> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------