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

Re: [filters] Shading language recommendation

From: Sebastian Markbåge <sebastian@calyptus.eu>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 01:18:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEfn7zO4oH8qVq7O4wd5SPWmwk75nzjE=N-t58DRNon0DXtEDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Hi Sylvain,

> > 1) We believe the conformance of a Filter Effects implementation should
> > not depend on its use of GL SL ES i.e. if a UA wants to support this
> > functionality with a different technology they should be able to do so.
> > Yes, I agree. And it is possible like shown with ANGLE.
>
> I'm not sure how you can both agree that implementations should not have
> to depend on GL SL and suggest a technology that requires GL SL input
> as an alternative?


I assumed (as perhaps Dirk did) that you meant that it should not depend on
GLSL ES drivers. The only other way I can interpret your argument is that
you don't want it to depend on the language at all. Isn't that a circular
argument? I.e. you don't want the spec to depend on GLSL because you don't
want the spec to depend on GLSL. Could you please clarify this argument?
Perhaps I misunderstood.

Can we at least agree that if requiring/recommending language X is a
> concern then technologies that require X as input will not resolve
> said concern?


See point 1. If the first argument is circular (i.e. not an argument), then
this doesn't follow.
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 23:18:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 22 August 2012 23:18:28 GMT