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

Re: Adding normal matrix to CSS Shaders

From: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:44:11 -0800
Cc: public-fx@w3.org, "Gregg Tavares (wrk)" <gman@google.com>
Message-id: <19C900BD-FDEC-46EE-BC47-CDECA88BDB02@apple.com>
To: Fabrice Robinet <cmg473@motorola.com>

On Jan 12, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Fabrice Robinet wrote:

> ...mail went away to quickly...  full answer rephrased.. sorry for the noise
> 
> + in addition to my previous comment.
> 
> That was probably misleading from me, to get GL as reference.
> While GL tends to become more general and get rid of the rest of the fixed pipeline and some associated built-in uniform (like normal matrix).
> An opposite move with spec like CSS Shaders is to be more specific and rely on clear / meaningful attributes. 
> 
> -> That's why I believe that normal matrix could fit well eventually.
> It's also okay to have alternatively more general matrixes attributes like "inverse transpose", 
> but as I stated in the mail before , that's many choices to take if we don't want take all the combinations. 
> So what I didn't like with the totally generic matrix description (such as NVIDA)  if that I felt it a bit premature (wrt to the SPEC)  and heavy to sort it out well.

The thing about that list is that there are really only 3. The rest are just those matrices combined or with inverse or transpose applied. So implementing all of them would not be hard. The real reason to have all of them is to allow authors to use the one(s) that exactly fits the use can and have the multiplications all done in native code.

-----
~Chris
cmarrin@apple.com
Received on Friday, 13 January 2012 22:49:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 January 2012 22:49:48 GMT