The spec. says "2**(k-lod) for image arrays of level zero through k" which means k is the maximum image level (or LoD) which is how k is used throughout this portion of the spec. "lod" in this _expression_ refers to the particular image level whose size is being calculated.I don't think 'k' is usually lod, and in particular 'k' is not lod in that passage, as 'lod' is lod. 'k' does generally appear as an integer in the spec, but it's usually unambiguously specified as such. As written, the passage in question works fine as a continuous formula, restricted in practice by the inability to specify fractional texture levels. I personally find the argument that MAX_TEXTURE_SIZE is coerced to POT by this passage weak. If we want to specify it as such, we should just do so explicitly. The spec should be clear, and it's always a little embarrassing when something as simple as this results in such subtly-positioned arguments.
Huh? Only limited NPOT support is required which means no mipmaps. Any addition of an NPOT MAX_TEXTURE_SIZE will require numerous specification changes to permit creating mipmaps for certain texture sizes and not for others.I think it is much more useful to allow NPOT MAX_TEXTURE_SIZE, since we require NPOT texture support anyways.
NOTE: This electronic mail message may contain confidential and privileged information from HI Corporation. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, photocopying, distribution or use of the contents of the received information is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this message and all related copies.