Three topics follow, and hopefully resolution of the A/B/C vote.
First, since we're approaching completion of the debate over the
exact shape of glext.h, I've started generating a copy automatically
from the extension registry. It's at
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/ogl-sample/ABI/glext.h
This includes some recently ARB-approved extensions from December
(specs are also in the registry), and will include the new batch of
extensions from the March meeting as soon as I finish updating the
registry proper. I intend for this to be the canonical version of
glext.h that goes with the ABI and the registry. Please test it out, let
me know of problems, and start shipping it in your implementations if
you're so inclined. I've done some cursory sanity testing of glext.h on
the couple of platforms I have access to, but not enough to feel
confident of its utility against a wide variety of implementations, yet.
The
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/ogl-sample/ABI/index.html
page has been updated to link to glext.h from the appropriate
section.
Second, there's an issue we missed regarding GLX/WGL extensions and
glext.h (thanks, Paula!). The spec does not pin down where prototypes
for non-GL extensions should be. There is some existing practice on
Windows along the lines of a separate wgl<vendor>.h, and it also seems
to make sense both in that it's difficult to declare GLX extensions
without first #including <GL/glx.h> (which a lot of code may not wish to
do), and that it's pretty nonsensical to be dumping WGL/GLX/AGL/etc.
extensions. into the same glext.h, even if they are protected by
#ifdefs.
So I propose that we expand the spec to mandate a separate glxext.h,
treated analogously to glext.h except that it's dependent on glx.h, and
that defacto Windows vendors agree on a wglext.h. If at some point in
the future a gluext.h becomes desirable, it can be added to a future
spec revision.
Third and finally, the A/B/C vote resolution. Michael requested that
we re-vote specifying a desired ordering and applying 2/1/0 voting
weights according to that ordering. Response died down quickly; although
not everyone who initially voted responded, I think it's reasonable to
bring this to a close. The preferred orderings expressed were:
A B C
Allen Akin 1 0 2
Brian Paul 2 0 1
Stuart Anderson 2 ? ? (didn't specify preference among B/C)
Leath Muller 0 1 2
Jon Leech 2 1 0
Steve Baker 2 1 0
Thomas Roell 1 2 0
Michael Gold 0 1 2
-----------------
10 6+1? 7+1?
It appears to me that, following Michael's procedure, (A) ekes out a
narrow win. In case someone has a dispute with this summary, excerpts
from the email on which I based it are attached. Can we move on now?
Jon Leech
SGI
Votes/responses follow:
-----------------------------------------
From: Michael Gold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [oglbase-discuss] Vote results: 1 YES, 2 A
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 03:02:04 -0700
...
My order of preference is c, b, a.
-----------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 09:57:44 -0700
Subject: Re: [oglbase-discuss] Vote results: 1 YES, 2 A
...
So my preference order was 2C, 2A, 2B.
-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 11:03:32 -0600
From: Brian Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [oglbase-discuss] Vote results: 1 YES, 2 A
...
My voting order is A, C, B.
-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 15:11:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Stuart Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [oglbase-discuss] Vote results: 1 YES, 2 A
...
I think there are some things that we can put in place to help minimize code
like this (no offense 8-)). I don't think that we can figure it out in just a
couple of days, which is why I voted for A. Let's get what we have out there,
and start getting some practical experience.
...
-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:10:42 +1000
From: Leath Muller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [oglbase-discuss] Vote results: 1 YES, 2 A
...
This is definitely the preferable way for me to go. I know there is
a lot of concern about legacy applications and their compatibility,
but quite simply, I would rather get things 'right'. (i.e.: vote C, B
then A)
-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 11:39:36 -0700
From: Jon Leech <ljp>
Subject: Re: [oglbase-discuss] Vote results: 1 YES, 2 A
...
My voting order is A, B, C.
-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 13:42:07 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Stephen J Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [oglbase-discuss] Vote results: 1 YES, 2 A
...
My voting order is also A, B, C - but I protest the need to re-vote.
-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:46:17 -0600 (MDT)
From: Thomas Roell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [oglbase-discuss] Vote results: 1 YES, 2 A
...
In any case, my vote with the threeway vote would be:
B, A, C
-----------------------------------------
