On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:49 PM, John Davis <email@example.com> wrote:Is limiting ourselves to the lowest common denominator the best strategy? If WinXP is our gold standard, then we'll never have compute shaders.The goal of reaching the most people is already in place, webgl 1.0 and ANGLE. Why not start shooting for where the target will be?I think they are shooting for where the target will be. Today > 50% of people can't run ES 3.0. By the time WebGL 2.0 ships maybe that will be up to 60%If people see compelling content on their friend's webgl 2.1/ES 3.1 device, they will be inclined to upgrade sooner rather than later. As opposed to us waiting on them to upgrade on their own.At this point, I still think it would be a better allocation of resources to focus on webgl 2.1/es 3.1 for Android and IOS, and then let MANGLE catch up. The latest iphones and tablets, which are selling like hotcakes, have ES 3.1 hardware, right?There's no ES 3.1 on iOS AFAIK and the first ES 3.1 device hasn't shipped for Android yet.Why is this years away?I don't know know the differences between 3.0 and 3.1 but assuming 3.1 is just 3 + some stuff then there's no difference in timeline as implementing all 3.1 would require first implementing all of 3.0 which is exactly what they're already doing.On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Gregg Tavares <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Let me add as well I think Ken has done and is doing a great job.We all want the shiniest newest features. But, one goal of a browser is to run everywhere. If WebGL were to go 3.1 most phones couldn't run it. Browsers are trying to cover as many people as possible. In fact it's likely WebGL 2.0 won't run on a great number of devices that WebGL 1.0 runs on. Windows XP's market share is still > 1 out of 5 people. Even looking at Mac's 30% of them can't run WebGL 2.0 which requires OSX 10.9 or higher. 1 out of 5 iPhones is still a 4 or 4S. No existing phone that I know of supports 3.1I don't think the browser's goals have ever been to be on the bleeding edge of GPU APIs. Their goals are a more along the lines of making them accessible to the most people. Targeting 3.1 would likely mean most people couldn't use the API for many years. Unlike GL the goal of a browser is as much as possible write once run everywhere. Different goals lead to different priorities. Personally I think the current goals are the appropriate ones.On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Aleksandar Rodic <email@example.com> wrote:What I'm seeing is increasing support, stability and performance across all platforms at a rate I thought was not possible.Kudos to Ken and everyone at WebGL WG for making it possible.AkiOn Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Zhenyao Mo <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Perception could be biased / deceiving, specifically you focus your
evaluation solely on the "speed" factor.
It's like planting a tree, we all can't wait to taste the fruit, but
things have their cycles, and rushing usually does not work; it could
even kill the plant.
The fact is WebGL has been growing healthily for the past a few years,
and we have more fruits to pick in the near future. So I would say
great job on Ken's side.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 3:47 AM, John Davis <email@example.com> wrote:
> Nothing personal. As chairman of the webgl working group, for over three
> years, what has been achieved thus far?
> 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?
You are currently subscribed to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe, send an email to email@example.com with
the following command in the body of your email: