Internet Explorer and Microsoft Edge report these <1.0 version strings; the goal here was to enable feature support detection* as we update the renderer several
The goal has always been to use ‘1.0’ as soon as we had a fully conformant implementation, and to update devices so that we get to ‘1.0’ everywhere; we’ve received
feedback from developers that they find the 0.01 increments useful.
That said, if it is more useful to change to ‘1.0’ at this point, we could do that.
*only for cases where no other feature support detection mechanism could be used.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
On Behalf Of Kenneth Russell
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 7:39 AM
To: Florian Bösch <email@example.com>
Cc: public webgl <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [Public WebGL] WebGL/ESSL version strings
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 4:02 AM, Florian Bösch <email@example.com> wrote:
WebGL implementations report back the VERSION and SHADING_LANGUAGE_VERSION getParameter strings.
It's my understanding there are only two valid values for the parameter VERSION: WebGL 1.0 and WebGL 2.0 at the time of this writing (afaik minor spec revision versions aren't reported). However, these are versions that are reported in
It's my Understanding that there are only two valid values for the parameter SHADING_LANGUAGE_VERSION: WebGL GLSL ES 1.0 and WebGL GLSL ES 2.0. However, these are values observed in the wild:
WebGL GLSL ES 0.9
WebGL GLSL ES 0.91
WebGL GLSL ES 0.92
WebGL GLSL ES 0.93
WebGL GLSL ES 0.94
WebGL GLSL ES 0.95
WebGL GLSL ES 1.0
Request for clarification
I would like to inquire off the Khronos WebGL WG the following questions for clarification:
Is it correct that the only two valid versions to report here are 1.0 and 2.0?
If so (or not) should there be language in the specifications to clarify this?
There's no need. The specification already says this.
Is it correct that official members to the Khronos WebGL WG are required to adhere to the standards set forth by the group and should not willfully deviate from the standard?
I don't know which implementations are reporting these strings but they're not conformant.