[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 wasn't aware of that policy but I understand the purpose.

What's the criterion/limit for considering new extension?


On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote:
It's not that it isn't important. But to explain, the policy on WebGL extensions has been so far to add those which expose widely available features (on both mobiles and desktops). Every extension in the registry has been subjected to this litmus test.

I may not personally agree with that policy, but it's one that every member of the committee and every public participant had to accommodate themselves with. For example, 3D-textures wheren't added to WebGL years ago because mobile support for them wasn't great. It's still not great. Mobiles make something like 10-20% of WebGL traffic. I have argued, to no avail, that this shouldn't be a reason not to add them.

The second we'll change this policy, I'll personally suggest at least a dozen new extensions exposing features I'm quite fond of, but for which support is not great.