W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > July to September 2012

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

From: Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:15:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOK8ODiMaGhJgCfOV8Un=LZjQ-A=202FLnWKQ_KjJ4tc=AnaYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com>
Cc: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, public webgl <public_webgl@khronos.org>
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:01 AM, David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't believe anyone is proposing an undefined syntax (unless you
> count the bugs in GLSL).
>
Microsoft is proposing to not to fix the syntax so they can do their own.


> Given the choice between no support in IE and support with a different
> shading language, the latter is highly preferable.
>
I disagree. Given a choice of a standard that *is* a standard in the sense
that it specifies how something works, so developers can use it in a
consistent fashion is highly preferable to a "standard" that works
differently everywhere. If Microsoft does not agree to "standardize"
something, they should just come out and say so instead of sabotaging a
standard.

Or perhaps you would like MS to implement something with the same
> syntax as GLSL ES but with different semantics? That would be
> absolutely terrible.
>
No, I don't want that. You're putting words in my mouth, I thought it is
quite obvious, but what I (and absolutely *every* web author) wants is:
- A single standard
- With defined api/syntax
- With defined semantics
- Working everywhere the *same*
I fiercely, strongly, absolutely, vehemently, angrily object to "standards"
that are intentionally crafted to sabotage these goals.


> Florian, we must assume we have no direct influence in the language
> forking. It will happen. To win, we have to accept it and make it
> irrelevant. To accept it and make it irrelevant, we have to convince
> everyone involved to do it in the most straightforward/integrated way.
> If MS can be convinced to load a different language under a different
> name through a very standard interface, sanity will have prevailed. MS
> will do this shit anyway. How would we like to respond?

If Microsoft wants to do their own thing, they're free to do so. I am not
in favor of sabotaging a standard (yet again) in order to appease
Microsofts desire to claim to be "standards compatible" when in fact they
perverted the purpose of the standard in the first place. If Microsoft/IE
does not want to be standards compatible, that is *their* choice, and they
should man up to stating "we don't care about that" instead of trying to
look good by fooling us into giving into their maliciously scheming
sabotaging of standards.

Let standards be standards, be real standards. They do not "define" the
web, however they define a spirit of collaboration. Microsoft does clearly
not want to "collaborate" so I don't see why the discussion of this
standard should concern itself with the opinion of Microsoft.
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 07:15:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 22 August 2012 07:15:51 GMT