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

Re: [Public WebGL] RE: extension development process



On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:08 AM, Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com> wrote:

I agree with you that it would be useful to allow for a vendor to implement an extension not intended for any kind of standards process at that time as long as they properly prefix it. I believe such a mechanism would be useful especially in HTML runtime environments that is *not* the open web. (Silly example: A browser might expose some prefixed WebGL extension (exposed to the browser add-on runtime environment only) that allows the add-on developer to render 3D graphics into the browser frame.)


In traditional GL the vendor prefix usually serves this function. However in WebGL we've already used the vendor prefix slightly differently (for draft extensions on track to be standardized).

I'd suggest tacking on an additional prefix for extensions a vendor does not wish to standardize at that time, something like: NONSTANDARD_MS_your_extension.

Would this be a satisfactory convention for everybody?