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

Re: [Public WebGL] WebGL working group - leadership

I'm fairly confident that no vendor, at this time, will require the WebGL 2.1 standard because there's enough work to get WebGL 1.0 and WebGL 2.0 out the door. I'll also trust that vendors will give advance warning if they feel they're running out of work and are lacking a standard to do next.

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 3:42 PM, John Davis <jdavis@pcprogramming.com> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Davis <jdavis@pcprogramming.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Public WebGL] WebGL working group - leadership
To: Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com>

Exactly, couldn't have said it better myself.  MANGLE is a monstrous undertaking.  However, it should not be allowed to slow down webgl for ES 3.1.  For ES 3.1, webgl on IOS and Android, the implementation should be straightforward.  The priority should be on these devices, the desktop can then catch up later.

To me, WebGL is highly disruptive, and has the potential to take humankind to a whole new level.  Allowing information to be created/assimilated in 3D as opposed to 2D, the implications for learning are MASSIVE.  Throw in Occulus and things get really interesting.

By being too 'pragmatic' we are holding back the realization of an amazing future.

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote:
Well the major roadblock to shaking things up is WebGL 2.0. And it's true that this is taking an abysmally long time. But that's not a problem of the standard really, it's the implementations that're difficult. Once an implementation has achieved the move (to mangle, ES3/D3D11 etc.) it should be much easier to move forward to the next one (ES 3.1).

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 3:14 PM, John Davis <jdavis@pcprogramming.com> wrote:
Agree, what's happening is wonderful.  But while the market is digesting, the committee should be leading.  There is always a balance between being too pragmatic and too passionate.  My perception is that we're erring on the side of being too pragmatic.  Three years is a long time, why not shake things up a bit?

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd always like to see capabilities emerge faster. And WebGL 2.0 will be a nice jump. The past 3 years I've made my living almost exclusively implementing WebGL projects. There might not have happened terribly much in terms of capabilities (although don't overlook the extensions that did get approved and implemented, those help a lot).

What I did observe trough the last 3 years was that the demand for WebGL (from a freelancers perspective) is rising meteorically, in line with its uses in non-demo applications. I don't think that a bit of stability in the standard is a bad thing, it allows the market to consolidate and for implementations to get better and more robust. After all, native support for HW accelerated rendering is still buggy and unreliable, and WebGL has to deal with that too.

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:57 PM, John Davis <jdavis@pcprogramming.com> wrote:
Over three years ... feels like we're running in place.  Closing the gap between what the hardware can do, and what can be done in the browser, we haven't come very far.  IE11 and IOS8 are fantastic news, luckily they decided to jump on board.

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 8:46 AM, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm happy with Kens leadership. Things could always move quicker, but ultimately WebGL will only move as fast as the implementations will.

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:47 PM, John Davis <jdavis@pcprogramming.com> wrote:
Nothing personal.  As chairman of the webgl working group, for over three years, what has been achieved thus far?
  • 15 ratified extensions
  • 7 community approved extensions
  • 5 draft extensions
  • 4 proposed extensions
  • Comprehensive conformance test coverage
  • Uptake of WebGL by 2 desktop browsers (IE and Opera) and 3 mobile browsers (native android, Chrome Mobile and Safari)
  • Advancement of WebGL overall from 60% to 73%, 62% -> 77% on desktops, 2.4% -> 48% on mobiles.
  • 3 revisions of the WebGL 1.0 standard (1.0.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2), 1 revision of  of the WebGL 2.0 standard.
  • Implementations getting more robust
  • Microsoft has joined the WG
There are things that have happened in the last 3 years, a lot of things.

My perception is the standard progressed much faster under Vlad.  If he's willing, why don't we put Vlad back in the driver's seat?

Have you discussed this proposal with Ken and Vlad privately?