Re: Extension support: maybe not a binary yes/no

> On Aug 14, 2019, at 5:53 AM, Kevin Rogovin <kevinrogovin@invisionapp.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
>  On the discussion on Github on dual source blending, https://github.com/gpuweb/gpuweb/issues/391, it was brought up that some hardware declared support but it was buggy on some hardware. This led me to a more general thinking on extensions. There are other cases where a driver advertises an extension but it does not work correctly and the only way to know is to either run the test oneself or examine the GPU vendor and driver string (indeed SKIA has some of this). The thought is that a browser could provide information if it considers an extension, though advertised by the driver, it may not work always. So the extension query mechanism would have three different possible results: "yes", "no" or "yes, but the browser is suspicious of the driver's support".

An extension that doesn’t work is hardly an extension at all.

Under which circumstances would a browser advertise an extension as “suspicious” but not “no?”

And, what would you expect an app to do when it encounters a “suspicious” extension?

> Given that there are so major browsers now (and even fewer web-engines), if a browser says the 3rd option, it can prod IHV's to fix the issue, since small ISV's have much smaller impact (and will need to implement work-arounds as well).
> 
> Comments?
> 
>  -Kevin