- From: Gregg Tavares (wrk) <gman@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:09:45 -0800
- To: Fabrice Robinet <cmg473@motorola.com>
- Cc: public-fx@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAKZ+BNoK4Um2gHBeKPUiJuWErAB5aSM8j_XmYN_kkATMDAsKtQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Fabrice Robinet <cmg473@motorola.com>wrote: > Hi all, > > Let's revive this thread after christmas break ;) > > Back to the original proposal around the normal matrix, > Indeed, "normal matrix" is less "general" than "inverse transpose". > But I think "normal matrix" it is preferable as it allow to stay > conservative (its addition can be done independently of anything else) > as opposed to "inverse transpose" which would involve to take premature > decisions about other combinations that one "might need". > - Normal matrix typical use-case is for lighting, and that's clear. - > > Moreover, because of the similar (old) built-in gl_NormalMatrix uniform in > GLSL, > I believe the "normal matrix" would seem familiar/natural for most shaders > aficionados. I disagree. GL has been trying to get away from the fixed function specialized cruft of the last 18 years. That's why gl_NormalMatrix is not in OpenGL ES at all and has been deprecated in current OpenGL Let's not go adding that cruft back in. > > > Let's continue the discussion if there are more concerns about this, > otherwise that would be awesome to have this uniform supported for a new > revision of the spec. > > As a reminder, there is a bug tracking this: > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15253 > > Thanks, > Fabrice. >
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2012 21:11:40 UTC