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

[Public WebGL] Re: rejecting WEBGL_color_buffer_float and EXT_color_buffer_half_float



I believe it's established that consensus on rejection cannot be reached. Therefore I've started the alterntive proposal of moving these extensions back to draft: https://www.khronos.org/webgl/public-mailing-list/archives/1502/msg00042.html

The proposal to rejection is suspended until the alternate proposal is resolved. A failure to find a satisfactory resolution to these extensions will circle back to this rejection proposal.

On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote:
Please move extension development policy debate into the extension development process thread.

WEBGL_color_buffer_float and EXT_color_buffer_half_float are a problem.
  • One vendor objects to them on technical grounds (Google, Kenneth could you please elaborate what the issue is?)
  • Another vendor (Mozilla) who says they implement these extensions, doesn't actually implement them (mostly). Jeff, could you please explain how it comes about that these extensions are only available on 2% of your install base, and that support for them took a nosedive after November 2014?
  • These extensions cannot be ratified, which is a stated reason that they can be rejected in the extension development process guidelines. If you object to this reason, please move your objection over to the extension development process.
  • These extensions cannot be modified to make suitable for other vendors, because they're in community approved status.
So it's pretty clear to me, and hopefully anybody else, that "community approved" is not what these extensions are, anything but, actually. Therefore there is only 4 unpalatable choices open:
  • Reject these extensions (as proposed)
  • Move them back to draft
  • Leave them hanging in limbo (also proposed as a resolution to rejection)
The opposition has made it impossible to reject these extensions, and the status of these extensions has made it impossible to have them do anything useful or be ratified. The only course of action left is:
  1. Move them back to draft
  2. Take in input from vendors with technical objections and rework them until that's solved.