- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 13:46:41 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
It would perhaps be clearer if you answered my questions from earlier. I'll reproduce them here: You've said that we should allow for expansion, so that future shader languages can be supported. Sure, that's reasonable. But that has nothing to do with what languages we require to be supported in the beginning. What is *wrong* with requiring GLSL as a supported language, but allowing extensions such that you can expose additional languages? In a previous response email to Dirk, where you repeatedly stressed the importance of developer choice in the matter, but never actually argued for why "1 required option, + additional choices" was bad. Can you elaborate? More importantly, can you explain why that is worse for developers than "you have to write all your shaders twice - once for IE and once for everyone else"? ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2012 20:47:29 UTC