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

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

From: Brandon Jones <tojiro@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:17:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMttkKKRwz8MPUk=L8S2E_DQghkUvdPr2JqO2NMHR4xJhQeDsQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
Cc: public-fx@w3.org, public webgl <public_webgl@khronos.org>
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
.... 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

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
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 19:30:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 22 June 2015 03:33:48 UTC