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: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:25:27 -0500
Message-ID: <13e8bf3b383c98a6e9bcc7ec6a1d4b8f.squirrel@webmail.sjbaker.org>
To: "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: "steve@sjbaker.org" <steve@sjbaker.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
How then do you respond to my two substantive points?

1) If you are indeed "part of the team" here - then you're surely
accepting the already-agreed and widely implemented WebGL standard which
includes just one allowed shader language: GLSL...and which every browser
(except yours) has implemented without difficulties or inefficiencies on
every modern platform (including yours).  Having a seat at the table means
accepting standards once they are agreed by the majority (and widely
implemented) - even if you didn't initially like them.

2) If the browser already supports GLSL for WebGL what conceivable reason
could there be for demanding replacement shader languages?  A
standards-compliant browser already implements GLSL...why not also use it
for CSS?

If this is truly about making a good standard and not about Microsoft's
usual "Embrace, extend, extinguish" tactics (please don't deny that), what
possible reason could there be to include new shader languages for CSS?

Is it not the case that if your CSS multiple-shader-language proposal were
to be accepted, your very next move would be to demand the same support in
WebGL?  Embracing, then extending (and thereby moving towards
extinguishing) easy-to-author OpenGL on the web.

We need a single shader language standard because sooner or later, other
web-based technologies such as SVG and <canvas> will require it.

  -- Steve


Sylvain Galineau wrote:
>
> [Steve Baker:]
>> Why are we even bothering to talk to Microsoft?  They don't deserve a
>> place at the table.
>
> Because we're contributing members of this Working Group and many others
> like it. Because we edit specifications, submit thousands of tests and
> implement standards. Because we work with Apple, Adobe and others on many
> other SVG and CSS features. Because one as-of-yet unresolved issue at one
> point in time does not define anyone's 'place at the table'. Because
> standards are defined by consensus and consensus is not built by excluding
> anyone who disagrees with you after a mere two days of polite discussion
> on a mailing list.
>
> Dismissive language certainly does not deserve a place at the table. It is
> unnecessary and unhelpful. Please keep your feedback constructive and
> relevant to the matter at hand. Asking questions is useful and helpful
> too.
>
> No problem is solved by throwing noise at it.
>
>


 -- Steve
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 12:26:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 August 2012 12:26:18 GMT