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

Re: [filters] Shading language recommendation

From: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:46:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJTmd9pGErXk2F1K1LPka_Kdpe18f0fRY4Q0w8HtxDEn+kRD9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
2012/8/22 Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>

>
> On Aug 22, 2012, at 7:08 AM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> [Dirk Schulze:]
>
>
> I'll add an issue to the specification and mention your concern with the
> link to this thread. Do you think that this concern blocks publishing
> FPWD? Are you ok with publishing The WD when it explicitly mentions your
> concern?
>
> I would like to resolve this before FPWD.
>
>
>
> I'd like to return to the questions put forth in previous posts:
>
> 1) Is your objection technical or something else?
>
> 2) If your objection is based on the issue of "my platform does not
> support GLSL", what about ANGLE
>

ANGLE has been mentioned multiple times in this thread, but I would like to
point out that at least Opera --- for all I know, after all I don't work
there --- uses another equivalent compiler to translate GLSL to HLSL.

Just emphasizing that the choice of GLSL for WebGL does not force using
ANGLE.

Benoit


> and the fact that WebGL (which is the basis for the shading language
> specified) is designed to be implemented on Direct3D, and in fact there are
> currently multiple such implementations available?
>
> 3) If the spec were written with no recommended shading language, wouldn't
> that inhibit widespread adoption? How would we deal with that?
>
> I think we need to understand these issues before proceeding.
>
> -----
> ~Chris Marrin
> cmarrin@apple.com
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 15:47:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 22 August 2012 15:47:09 GMT