The WG should not categorically reject extensions which it is merely unwilling to ratify. If it's community approved, I fail to see why it needs to either be ratified or rejected.
That's a debate for another thread on extension development policy. Assuming these two working facts:
Every extension should be ratified
These extensions cannot be ratified because implementations from other vendors will not emerge.
Do you wish to add anything to this observation to justify the objection to the rejection other than "we already implemented it"?
Circling back for a second to the community approved status of these extensions, they're community approved on a technicality because OES_texture_float references them, and if they would be in draft, that would make it awkward to support them. Technical difficulties in implementation where noted by Kenneth Russel long before they where moved to community approved, and it's my opinion that they shouldn't have been moved to community approved while technical difficulties aren't resolved.