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

Re: [filters] Shading language recommendation

From: Fabrice Robinet <cmg473@motorola.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:38:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPam9RoV8cB3BPHeORFLign11GFO-Y7Zm3K=mrsWMvB0Qn9ncQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Hi Sylvain,

>3) If the spec were written with no recommended shading language, wouldn't
that inhibit widespread adoption?

> >How would we deal with that?
>
> The widespread adoption of what? Do canned effects such as grayscale,
> sepia, saturate etc.


It would be more fair for CSS Shaders if you mentioned the possibilities by
using vertex shaders shaders.
Just take the adobe demos with map folding and small page curling...

Yes grayscale could be done using the CSS Filter parent SPEC but IMO you
are missing the point...


> need a specific shading
> language recommendation to achieve interop?
>

So why do you bother arguing for another shader dialect ?

Fabrice.
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 19:38:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 22 August 2012 19:38:40 GMT