W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Adding normal matrix to CSS Shaders

From: Gregg Tavares (wrk) <gman@google.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:09:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKZ+BNoK4Um2gHBeKPUiJuWErAB5aSM8j_XmYN_kkATMDAsKtQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fabrice Robinet <cmg473@motorola.com>
Cc: public-fx@w3.org
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Fabrice Robinet <cmg473@motorola.com>wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Let's revive this thread after christmas break ;)
>
> Back to the original proposal around the normal matrix,
> Indeed,  "normal matrix" is less "general" than "inverse transpose".
> But I think "normal matrix"  it is preferable as it allow to stay
> conservative (its addition can be done independently of anything else)
> as opposed to "inverse transpose" which would involve to take premature
> decisions about other combinations that one "might need".
> - Normal matrix typical use-case is for lighting, and that's clear. -
>
> Moreover, because of the similar (old) built-in gl_NormalMatrix uniform in
> GLSL,
> I believe the "normal matrix" would seem familiar/natural for most shaders
> aficionados.


I disagree. GL has been trying to get away from the fixed function
specialized cruft of the last 18 years. That's why gl_NormalMatrix is not
in OpenGL ES at all and has been deprecated in current OpenGL

Let's not go adding that cruft back in.



>
>
> Let's continue the discussion if there are more concerns about this,
> otherwise that would be awesome to have this uniform supported for a new
> revision of the spec.
>
> As a reminder, there is a bug tracking this:
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15253
>
> Thanks,
> Fabrice.
>
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2012 21:11:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 12 January 2012 21:11:41 GMT