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

Re: [filters] Shading language recommendation

From: David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 11:56:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWM5TwVwXLdMHQsZRUNR-nbLY=qixm2g9qOrXdNREQfFHv2OA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Sylvain Galineau
<sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
> [David Sheets:]
>
>> Is your present concern solely the sectional classification of the draft
>> document?
>
> Yes.
>
>> What normative suggestion are you making to replace your
>> informative section 38.2?
>
> None. Just as in Media Source Extensions.

Media Source Extensions normatively specifies a method,
addSourceBuffer(type)
<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html#mediasource-methods>,
on SourceBuffer objects to handle these matters. The informative
sections of Media Source Extensions follow a normative section
<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html#byte-stream-formats>
detailing support for byte stream formats under certain conditions
(support for resources of that format).

CSS FX would require additional normative content to be analogous to
Media Source Extensions.

>> Do you have any specific technical proposal to manage the divergence you
>> are proposing? What exactly is your "[s]hading language recommendation"?
>
>
> We would not recommend any at this time.

Please clarify:

Do you not recommend any shading language at all?
Do you not recommend any *specific* shading language?
Do you not recommend any technical means to manage shading language
media type divergence?

where 'you' is understood as 'Microsoft' and 'recommend' is understood
as 'would propose that the specification recommends'.
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2012 18:56:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 5 September 2012 18:56:45 GMT