[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Public WebGL] ARB_texture_storage for WebGL
Are there any arguments against keeping "copies" of WebGL 2 method as WebGL 1 extension method?
Otherwise I completely agree with you: extensions allows to ship features early thus allowing to adopt them faster.
09.09.2015, 17:41, "Florian Bösch" <email@example.com>:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Kirill Dmitrenko <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I think that would be strange: WebGL 2 mainly compatible with WebGL 1, i.e. sensible code written against WebGL 1 spec should work the same way for WebGL2 context. Thus it makes more sense to have only WebGL 2 implementation and always return WebGL 2 context, even if WebGL 1 was requested. This approach works for desktop OpenGL and OpenGL ES, I see no reason why it can't work for WebGL.
PS. Perhaps, it would be right to make WebGL 2 *completely* upward compatible with WebGL 1
There's a bunch of extension in WebGL1 which will not exist in WebGL2 because they've become core functionality. At best peoples app will suddenly lack the extra functionality, and at worst they will break (tsk-tsk). We wouldn't want that, so no. it's getContext for either 'webgl' or 'webgl2'.
Nevertheless it's worthwhile to provide functionality to WebGL1 that exist in WebGL2 because WebGL2 implementations will have considerable lag and need to climb a long ramp of adoption. But we do want people do use WebGL2 as much as is possible. The best way to do that is to make backwards support and forward support as smooth as possible.
Yandex Maps Team