W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2009

Re: WebGL | The 3D Canvas Context for HTML

From: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:25:02 -0800
Message-ID: <4B22C6BE.3040300@mozilla.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:47:07 +0100, Arun Ranganathan 
> <arun@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> [...]
> I've been trying to cut my mailing list subscriptions recently so 
> hopefully someone can forward this as appropriate.

I understand that multiple mailing lists are difficult to deal with, but 
it is unfortunate you can't engage with the WG directly.  I'm glad of 
the feedback, and will certainly forward your comments on to 
> https://cvs.khronos.org/svn/repos/registry/trunk/public/webgl/doc/spec/WebGL-spec.html 
> The draft appears to use outdated Web IDL syntax. It also uses 
> features, e.g. NameDeleter that are controversial with TC39 so you may 
> want to reconsider using those.

Can you give any specific syntax that's outdated?  Also, are you 
referring to the published WebIDL specification [1] or the editor's 
draft [2]?
Feedback about NameDeleter is useful.
> It also seems that a bunch of the new objects introduced should really 
> be part of ECMAScript instead. E.g. all the new typed array interfaces.

The goal would certainly be to feed some of this back to ECMAScript.
> Some of the typedefs are scoped to WebGLRenderingContext but are in 
> fact used all over the place.

This should be fixed; can you share a specific one?

> Also, why is it WebGLRenderingContext and not 
> CanvasRenderingContextWebGL which would be more consistent with the 
> existing CanvasRenderingContext2D?

1. Length of typing :)
2. You'll notice that the nomenclature is such that *all* interfaces are 
prefaced with WebGL*.  So consistency with the other interfaces is 
desirable.  This naming convention was more convenient to JS developers, 
rather than OGL ES 2.0 "gl prefixing."

> It does not seem to be defined when the event defined at the end of 
> the specification is actually dispatched. The name of the event is 
> also not defined, just the interface it implements. Also, if more than 
> one resource is lost, which one does "resource" return? And why do you 
> need the context attribute? Isn't it already clear that the event is 
> for the WebGL context?

This area needs to be spec'd out better; also, I don't think existing 
implementations of WebGL don't use this event in the way the draft 
specifies right now.

-- A*
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL/
[2] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/
Received on Friday, 11 December 2009 22:25:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:04 UTC