- From: David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 22:52:05 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote: > > [David Sheets:] >> >> > >> > [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'. > > Oh, no worries. I see what the problem is now. You're taking this > reference a couple of levels more literally than I intended it. By > 'a pattern similar to' section 6.1 in Media Source Extensions I only > mean to allude to the content being informative i.e. 'if you use > this technology, this is how you would use this feature'. Likewise, > we would be happy for section 38.2 of Filter Effects to be informative. "`I do,' Alice hastily replied; `at least--at least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know.'" ~ Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Chapter VII: A Mad Tea Party <http://www.cs.indiana.edu/metastuff/wonder/ch7.html> > That's it. This was a general editorial comment, not a specific > technical one. Does that help? Is your present concern solely the sectional classification of the draft document? What normative suggestion are you making to replace your informative section 38.2? Do you have any specific technical proposal to manage the divergence you are proposing? What exactly is your "[s]hading language recommendation"?
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 05:52:33 UTC