Let's reject. It'd be nice to have, but its potential impact seems minimal.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Kenneth Russell <email@example.com> wrote:
> I agree that it'd be better to reject this extension rather than move it
> forward. Now that WebGL 2.0's on the verge of shipping in multiple browsers,
> I think we should encourage more implementations rather than continue to add
> extensions to WebGL 1.0.
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Zhenyao Mo <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> My main concern is we won't have full EXT_texture_storage on top of DX9,
>> on which some WebGL1 implementations are based.
>> To me, a better path is just to switch to WebGL2 whenever it's possible,
>> where texture storage is part of core.
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Florian Bösch <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> No change has occured on
>>> since September 2015
>>> Can this extension be elevated to draft?