I don't want to fuel a long debate on this topic but since MozillaOn Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Florian Bösch <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Jeff Gilbert <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> 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.
pressed to move these extensions out of draft because they felt they
were implementable, I prefer to leave them indeterminately in the
community approved state.