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

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

From: Steve Baker <steve@sjbaker.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:04:26 -0500
Message-ID: <06424cb5e9b225ac06325573ebd9da4b.squirrel@webmail.sjbaker.org>
To: "Brandon Jones" <tojiro@gmail.com>
Cc: "Chris Marrin" <cmarrin@apple.com>, public-fx@w3.org, "public webgl" <public_webgl@khronos.org>
The crazy part is that WebGL doesn't permit anything other than GLSL - so
a fully compliant/fully featured browser needs a GLSL implementation
anyway.

If you have GLSL for WebGL then why the heck wouldn't you just use it for
CSS too?

Ergo, the only possible reason you'd want anything other than GLSL for CSS
is if you've decided that you're never going to support WebGL.

So, this amounts to a veiled statement that IE will never support WebGL.

Why are we even bothering to talk to Microsoft?  They don't deserve a
place at the table.

  -- Steve

Brandon Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Sylvain has raised a legitimate issue, which we are discussing in a
>> civilized way.
>>
>
> I feel like I'm missing out on part of this conversation. All I can see
> from Microsoft is:
>
> "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.
> ... We think the ability to specify multiple shading languages is
> important, as broadly suggested by the current note. This allows sites to
> work with different user agents supporting different shading languages.
> For
> example, a future version of GL SL ES with fallback to the current version
> for user agents that don't yet support the new version."
>
> I'm not sure what the "legitimate issue" is here. It sounds very much to
> me
> as if Microsoft simply doesn't want to support GLSL and wishes to be given
> free reign to implement their own shading language instead (presumably a
> HLSL derivative). The only real reasoning provided is a vague concern
> about
> backwards compatibility for GLSL, which David Sheets identified as a
> non-issue.
>
> If there is really a legitimate concern here beyond Microsoft not wanting
> to support a shading language other than their own I'm very interested to
> hear it, but otherwise it's hard to see the suggestion of standardizing on
> a non-standard as anything but harmful to the web. That's not exactly
> "evil
> intent", but it's hard to justify nonetheless.
>
> --Brandon Jones
>


 -- Steve
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 19:30:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 22 August 2012 19:30:03 GMT