On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Florian Bösch <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Kenneth Russell <email@example.com> wrote:I can't comment on the choice of venue. Khronos has been a supportive home for the WebGL API for many years, and I'm grateful to the organization and all of its members. I hope, and am optimistic, that it will be possible to make good progress on this necessary step -- abstracting over the lower-level, pre-validated and more explicit graphics APIs -- at the W3C.I have reservations about the W3C specifically. Through the history of WebGL it has turned out that it needed more than a helping hand from GPU vendors, OS vendors, driver writers, GL extension writers and UA vendors. All of which sit on Khronos boards. Only the latter of which is probably gonna follow a W3C community group, if any. I find this problematic, it means the W3C community group would have to schedule regular standards meetings to bash out issues with the Khronos group which would have to have a subgroup for the W3C group interface... that seems, not intuitive.I share your concerns. I hope that a critical mass of GPU vendors, driver authors, independent software vendors, etc. will be achieved in this venue.