W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: [filter-effects] shader security model

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 11:29:58 -0800
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
CC: "www-svg@w3.org list" <www-svg@w3.org>, "bjacob@mozilla.com" <bjacob@mozilla.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD5CD823.1EFEE%stearns@adobe.com>
On 3/6/13 11:23 AM, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:

>On Wednesday 2013-03-06 11:00 -0800, Dirk Schulze wrote:
>> I wanted to resolve on a new working draft not only because of the
>>changes to custom filters, but more because of a lot of clarifications
>>for the other filter primitives and shorthand filters. At this point I
>>do not see shaders blocking the standardization process of the whole
>>spec. Should people still be concerned about the implementation status
>>of shaders later in the process, we can put shaders on the risk list
>>before going to CR. It may go into the next level of Filter Effects at
>>this point.
>> 
>> Do you disagree with this strategy?
>
>Yes.
>
>I think trying to postpone dealing with objections is a bad
>strategy.

I thought your remaining objection was about what's been implemented
widely and what has not. Since it will take more time to get to the point
in the process where we 'call for implementations' that issue may be moot
by the time the draft progresses. It seems much too early to me to move
custom filters to the next level only on implementation concerns.

Thanks,

Alan
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2013 19:30:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 6 March 2013 19:30:39 GMT