On Wed 07 May 2014 12:42:07 PM PDT, Benoit Jacob wrote: > 2014-05-07 15:09 GMT-04:00 Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com>: > >> We had a meeting about this today, and there is one big issue with my >> proposal above. Because of the fact that extra dictionary members in the >> contextOptions arguments are ignored, this means that UA engines which have >> already shipped their implementation will happily accept >> |canvas.getContext("webgl", {version: 2})| and give you a context object >> which doesn't support what the author would expect, which would fail >> requirement 1 above. >> >> After going through the options a bit, it seems like the only sensible >> thing to do would be to use a new context name string, so that code which >> is written against WebGL2 will not work against an implementation which is >> unaware of this. We seemed to agree that "webgl2" would probably be as >> good of an option as any. So basically the current state of the proposal >> is to accept "webgl2" as the name of the context, return a >> WebGLRenderingContext, and extend that interface in the spec through a >> partial interface, making those methods throw "NotSupportedError" if you >> have received the context with the name "webgl". >> >> Sorry for the back and forth on this! What do people think of this >> proposal version N? :-) > > I agree with this plan. > > The change back to a "webgl2" context id is mostly a detail --- the bigger > part of the plan, which is basically to avoid introducing separate Web > interfaces for each new WebGL version or feature, remains unchanged.
"webgl2+" ? </bikeshed> _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform