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

Re: [Public WebGL] Proposal to move WEBGL_compressed_texture_es3 to Draft

I get that ASTC is nice and all. But it's got 0% support, and 0% adoption so far. How's it helping to introduce "functionality" to WebGL which nobody can run, nobody can write code for, nobody can write a conformance test for and nobody will be able to do any of those things for years and years?

If it does turn out to be around somewhere, anywhere at all, there's ample time to add it at that time.

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Christophe Riccio <christophe.riccio@g-truc.net> wrote:
I am not speaking about support here but about adoption. What we need as an ecosystem is an universal texture format, supported by everyone. ASTC has been designed for this purpose and this is why it's a KHR extension and not only ARB extension.

ETC2 and EAC have been force on the ARB because of ES compatibility so effectively all the drivers on desktop hardware just uncompressed the textures when loading them. I am not sure about the status of ETC2 and EAC on mobile but I expect a certain level of identical behavior.
Furthermore, while ETC2 is a 4bpp format, ASTC is a 0.86bpp format which for the WebGL side of things is super important.

Creating a WebGL extension for ASTC would really help the whole ecosystem to move forward so that we can get this universal texture format that we absolutely require. 


On 18 February 2015 at 18:45, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote:
As far as I can tell ASTC has support on roughly 0% of desktops and mobiles.

A while back I compiled extension statistics, and ASTC doesn't appear on that list at all (because the extension isn't listed for any device on http://gfxbench.com/. The extension is also not listed on http://feedback.wildfiregames.com/report/opengl/ .

How do you conclude that it's well supported?

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Christophe Riccio <christophe.riccio@g-truc.net> wrote:

Are you considering an ASTC extension for WebGL?
It seems that the ecosystem adoption of ASTC is significantly larger than ETC2/EAC.


On 6 February 2015 at 21:48, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com> wrote:

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com> wrote:
>> >> The ES 3.0.4 specification defines the errors INVALID_OPERATION, should
>> >> it
>> >> be added?
>> >
>> > Anybody know the answer to that one?
>> It looks like the other WebGL extensions defining compressed textures
>> use INVALID_VALUE for this size check. I assume the conformance tests
>> are already verifying this. I'm in favor of minimizing the churn of
>> both the specs and tests in this area, so would suggest it be left as
>> is.
> INVALID_OPERATION is issued by compressedTexImage2D if:
> the format does not match the internal format
> If additional restrictions specified by the compression format specification
> apply and aren't satisfied
> INVALID_OPERATION is issued by compressedTexSubImage2D if:
> xoffset or yoffset are not zero
> width and height don't match the dimension of the texture level (is relaxed
> for specific formats which are easily modified)
>> I'm not sure what portion of the spec you're referring to. Please feel
>> free to submit pull requests containing any clarifications you suggest
>> and they can be discussed there. Thanks.
> INVALID_VALUE is issued in addition to dimension mismatch when:
>  The encoding of the compressed texture doesn't match the format
> specification

I'm not understanding what you're proposing be changed here -- don't
have time right now to go through these specs in detail. Please just
submit pull requests for whatever you are proposing so we can be very
precise about what's being discussed. Thanks.

You are currently subscribed to public_webgl@khronos.org.
To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo@khronos.org with
the following command in the body of your email:
unsubscribe public_webgl