These extensions are not ready, neither for community approval, nor for ratification. They cannot be ready, because one vendor, whom we've polled now to render his technical objection has stated that he has objections. Another vendor who purports to champion these extensions, is also not implementing them, for reasons unknown (but also polled).
That a ratified extension refers to these extensions does not provide more credence to them being community ratified, it only serves to compounds the magnitude of error committed.
A situation where extensions are promoted to "community ratified" based on a technicality, resulting in a registry containing extensions vendors are unwilling to implement is not tenable. This constitutes an extraordinary situation.
I'm not eager to reject these extensions. I'm in fact in full recognition of the need for these extensions. But by shoddily pushing them along as has happened, without consensus at any stage, doesn't only harm WebGL and renders the registry a bad joke, it actively prevents these extensions from performing the job they're designed to perform. That is what I'm extremely eager to prevent. And that is why I'm pushing, quite hard, to get this rectified before it becomes a bad example to follow.