Re: [Public WebGL] Re: [filters] Shading language recommendation

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:53 AM, David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> While Microsoft has no objection to defining how the feature works for
> UAs
> >>> that choose GL SL ES as defined by Web GL 1.0, we object to its
> normative
> >>> recommendation.
> >>
> >> Can you explain why you object? You mention below what you'd prefer,
> but don't
> >> provide reasoning.
> >>
> >> The informative section related to media codecs is there because there
> are
> >> well-known IP issues around that technology. As far as I am aware, this
> does
> >> not apply in the case of shading languages.
> >>
> >> Also, don't you (Microsoft) agree there is a significant penalty if we
> don't require
> >> a single shading language? What is it in particular about GLSL that you
> object
> >> to?
> > CSS Shaders as well as Filter Effects never required GLSL (on base of
> WebGL), but it is the recommended shading language. Therefore I don't share
> Sylvain's concerns that an implementation must support GLSL.
> > I think it is a good idea to think about future versions of GLSL as
> well. Therefore adding a feature string that helps the UA to decide if a
> shader is supported or not, and provide a fullback shader doesn't sound
> like a bad idea.
>

Thinking of future versions under the premise of one standardized syntax,
and future standardized syntax [OK] because friendly to web authors.
Proposing to keep syntax undefined and let everybody cook his own [NOT OK],
because not friendly to web authors and just another way to break the web.