Re: [filters] Shading language recommendation

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Sylvain Galineau
<sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> [David Sheets:]
>
>> As I understand it, your present proposal is to use a binary header format
>> for shader type declaration. Why?
>>
> I have made no such proposal. What specific statement(s) are you referring to?

Please, please, excuse me for casually using the technical term 'proposal'.

Instead of "prefer[ring] to follow a pattern similar to" the solution
referenced in the present FX draft, you linked to
<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html#webm>
and said:

>>> We would prefer to follow a pattern similar to the informative section 6.1 in
>>> Media Source Extension[2]: "This section defines segment formats for
>>> implementations that choose to support WebM".

This non-normative section of the HTML Media Source Extensions draft
refers to an EBML (Extensible Binary Meta Language
<http://www.webmproject.org/code/specs/container/#ebml-basics>
<http://www.matroska.org/technical/specs/index.html>) Header using a
local standard-managed namespace for the encapsulated media format
identifier.

If Microsoft does not "prefer to follow a pattern similar to" the EBML
Header DocType element to transmit shader source language metadata,
what does Microsoft "prefer"? Why was WebM mentioned at all?

Presently, Microsoft objects to the de facto use of GLSL ES as the CSS
FX shader source language but does not present a straw-man "preferred"
"pattern" (to laypeople, a 'proposal') to initiate the discussion of a
standard language metadata transmission system.

Could Microsoft "prefer to follow a pattern similar to" HTTP, HTML,
MIME, and other widely deployed Internet Standards by using
out-of-band IANA media types which are already implemented in their
other World Wide Web products?

Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 03:00:17 UTC