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

Re: [Public WebGL] Volume Textures



ANGLE -- in a new multi-platform incarnation -- will be the basis of Chrome's WebGL 2.0 implementation on all platforms. See https://code.google.com/p/angleproject/wiki/MANGLE for a detailed design doc.

-Ken


On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:22 PM, John Davis <jdavis@pcprogramming.com> wrote:
Is ANGLE going to continue, or is this a fresh implementation?


On Saturday, October 18, 2014, Jeff Gilbert <jgilbert@mozilla.com> wrote:
All browsers? That's really hard to say. I think we could see implementations start popping up in the first half of next year, though.

-Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Davis" <jdavis@pcprogramming.com>
To: "Kenneth Russell" <kbr@google.com>
Cc: "public webgl" <public_webgl@khronos.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 3:05:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Public WebGL] Volume Textures

Waving your finger in the air, what's the ETA on WebGL 2 implementations
across all existing webgl browsers?

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com> wrote:

> John,
>
> Try Mozilla's WebGL 2.0 prototype -- see
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/GFX/WebGL2 . It contains 3D texture
> support, and targeting that version of the API will ensure your code is
> portable as more WebGL 2 implementations become available.
>
> -Ken
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 9:26 AM, John Davis <jdavis@pcprogramming.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Years have gone by, and look were we're at!?  For heaven sake, let's just
>> add it.
>>
>> https://www.khronos.org/registry/gles/extensions/OES/OES_texture_3D.txt
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:35 PM, John Davis <jdavis@pcprogramming.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'll be anxiously waiting :)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:23 AM, John Davis <jdavis@pcprogramming.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > Ken,
>>>> > Vlad mentioned he would like to see the same thing.  My perception is
>>>> that
>>>> > he was summarily ignored.  Didn't he get this whole thing started?
>>>> Dan
>>>> > Ginsburg, OES 2.0 Bible, also ignored.
>>>> > Forgive me for singling out Chris, but he seems to have final say on
>>>> just
>>>> > about everything, which seems to fly in the face of an "open
>>>> standard".
>>>> >  Perhaps I should start addressing all members of the working group.
>>>> Who
>>>> > all is on the working group?  Are they even seeing this dialogue?
>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty sure that most of the people on the WebGL working group are
>>>> on this list. I am the chair of the working group (as of last
>>>> Thursday, taking over from Vlad). Chris, Mark Callow, Benoit Jacob and
>>>> Zhenyao Mo are all on the WG, and Vlad will likely be re-invited as an
>>>> outside expert.
>>>>
>>>> All open standards have (or should have) leaders and decision makers.
>>>> Chris's opinion is just that, one opinion. We aim to get consensus in
>>>> the WG. There are Khronos practices for voting on contentious topics.
>>>> In this case, where the WG seems divided, the path of least resistance
>>>> forward would be to propose a browser vendor-specific extension rather
>>>> than incorporating the OES version of the extension. The latter is
>>>> considered "more official" but any browser vendor can put forth the
>>>> former.
>>>>
>>>> > I truly believe this spec is going to change everything.  It's
>>>> special.  But
>>>> > the handling of it's evolution seems to have some conflicts of
>>>> interest.
>>>> >  Earlier Chris sited support of IOS devices, which I found
>>>> frightening.
>>>> >  WebGL should not be limited/dictated by caps in IOS devices.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't. However iOS is a major force in the mobile market and we do
>>>> not want to cause fragmentation of WebGL content early in its
>>>> lifetime. So far the extensions we have specified and plan to specify
>>>> work on desktop, iOS and Android. For the moment we would like to try
>>>> to keep it that way.
>>>>
>>>> Also please keep in mind that the spec will continue to evolve. If you
>>>> can work around the limitations of the current spec for a few more
>>>> months I think you will be pleased with forthcoming revisions.
>>>>
>>>> -Ken
>>>>
>>>> > JD
>>>> >
>>>> > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> (off-list)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:18 PM, John Davis <jdavis@pcprogramming.com
>>>> >
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >> > My bad, you're right.  Again I site the stats from multiple
>>>> sources at
>>>> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems
>>>> >> > Doesn't matter though, I guess we won't see volume textures until
>>>> Chris
>>>> >> > says
>>>> >> > we can have them.  Unless of course Gregg would be willing to have
>>>> >> > Transgaming add it to Angle w/o it being in the official extension
>>>> >> > registry.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> John,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Please be polite. Singling out Chris and blaming him on the public
>>>> >> mailing list is inappropriate behavior. Additionally, I believe
>>>> >> Chris's opinion is the majority opinion in the WebGL working group at
>>>> >> this time.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> If you could convince a browser vendor to add the extension in their
>>>> >> namespace (MOZ_texture_3D?) -- or perhaps even implement it in one of
>>>> >> the browsers and submit patches -- then perhaps others would add
>>>> >> support for the same extension.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> -Ken
>>>> >>
>>>> >> P.S. The WebGL spec will continue to evolve. The current set of
>>>> >> functionality is not all that will ever be supported.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Mark Callow <
>>>> callow_mark@hicorp.co.jp>
>>>> >> > wrote:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> I think you have that backwards. It's a 4:1 ratio mobile to
>>>> desktop.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Regards
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> -Mark
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> On 06/04/2011 20:05, John Davis wrote:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> That's still a 1:4 ratio, the tail is wagging the dog.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Mark Callow <
>>>> callow_mark@hicorp.co.jp>
>>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> Those stat's are deeply suspicious.
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> It is widely reported that in Japan the majority of people
>>>> access the
>>>> >> >>> internet from their mobile devices. A large number of these
>>>> devices do
>>>> >> >>> not
>>>> >> >>> have identifiable operation systems.
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> Another pointer is that when I visited
>>>> http://whatsmyuseragent.com,
>>>> >> >>> only
>>>> >> >>> 4 of the most recent 15 visitors came from desktop devices.
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> Regards
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> -Mark
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> On 06/04/2011 11:56, John Davis wrote:
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> I'm frustrated we are hamstringing the spec due to limitations
>>>> on the
>>>> >> >>> mobile side.  The majority of web browsers out there are not
>>>> being
>>>> >> >>> used on
>>>> >> >>> mobile devices.  Call me nuts, but this just doesn't make sense.
>>>> >> >>> Look at the Web clients table.
>>>> >> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems
>>>> >> >>> Percentage-wise mobile web clients don't amount to squat.
>>>> >> >>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com
>>>> >
>>>> >> >>> wrote:
>>>> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >>>> On Apr 2, 2011, at 5:46 AM, John Davis wrote:
>>>> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >>>> > >all of the extensions there are available on at least one
>>>> OpenGL
>>>> >> >>>> > > ES
>>>> >> >>>> > > implementation on mobile devices (iPhone).
>>>> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >>>> > Chris,
>>>> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >>>> > Why does the above matter if WebGL is never going to be
>>>> available
>>>> >> >>>> > on
>>>> >> >>>> > iPhone/iPad/AppleTV?  Why don't we focus on what IS available?
>>>> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >>>> Are you just making a fatalistic complaint that you're unhappy
>>>> with
>>>> >> >>>> the
>>>> >> >>>> fact that iOS devices don't publicly support WebGL today? Or
>>>> did you
>>>> >> >>>> get the
>>>> >> >>>> impression from me or someone else that iOS will never support
>>>> WebGL?
>>>> >> >>>> If you
>>>> >> >>>> interpreted something I said in that way, then I apologize. No
>>>> one at
>>>> >> >>>> Apple
>>>> >> >>>> can comment on if or when WebGL will be available on iOS. If
>>>> you've
>>>> >> >>>> gotten
>>>> >> >>>> that information from a blog somewhere then you should ignore
>>>> it (as
>>>> >> >>>> is a
>>>> >> >>>> general rule about bloggers and Apple rumors).
>>>> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >>>> -----
>>>> >> >>>> ~Chris
>>>> >> >>>> cmarrin@apple.com
>>>> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>