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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:41:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDD9W_fqC=TE4jHS6kkToqnW0-A5kuW4C4OKrZdm=0Rq6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: "steve@sjbaker.org" <steve@sjbaker.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:49 AM, Sylvain Galineau
<sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> We need a single shader language standard because sooner or later, other
>> web-based technologies such as SVG and <canvas> will require it.
> Ah, I see. 'We' need a single language, GL SL is a single language, therefore
> we need GL SL.
> I think we're done with this part of the thread.

Yes, please ignore the guy trolling.

However, I don't think you've adequately answered *why* you think GLSL
shouldn't be required.

You've said that we should allow for expansion, so that future shader
languages can be supported.  Sure, that's reasonable.  But that has
nothing to do with what languages we require to be supported in the
beginning.  What is *wrong* with requiring GLSL as a supported
language, but allowing extensions such that you can expose additional

Your last substantive email was in response to Dirk, where you
repeatedly stressed the importance of developer choice in the matter,
but never actually argued for why "1 required option, + additional
choices" was bad.  Can you elaborate?  More importantly, can you
explain why that is worse for developers than "you have to write all
your shaders twice - once for IE and once for everyone else"?

Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 14:42:23 UTC

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