From gma...@ Tue Mar 1 13:46:36 2011 From: gma...@ (Gregg Tavares (wrk)) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:46:36 -0800 Subject: [Public WebGL] problematic more/ tests now part of 1.0.0 conformance suite In-Reply-To: <4D6B5DE3.3030809@opera.com> References: <1006603363.459322.1298825113551.JavaMail.root@cm-mail03.mozilla.org> <4D6B5DE3.3030809@opera.com> Message-ID: The more tests are required but I see Benoit's point that some of those tests might not be specific to WebGL and should be refactored. Passing an empty img tag to gl.texImage2D seems like it should be defined Checking for ImageData should probably not. I'll look into refactoring those tests. -g On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Tim Johansson wrote: > > On 2011-02-27 17:45, Benoit Jacob wrote: > >> For what it's worth, I filed >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=637077 >> and I now completely agree that we should add a proper ImageData >> interface, despite still not knowing whether that kind of thing is >> normative. >> >> So this will probably be in Firefox 5; meanwhile, what I would like to >> know is whether the more/ directory is a requirement in order to be able to >> claim that we "pass the conformance test suite". >> > Yes, the tests in more are required. We all agreed in January that the > more/ tests should be part of the conformance test suite as they found > several important bugs in multiple implementations. > > //Tim > > > Benoit >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I noticed that the more/ directory was moved to conformance/ so I >>> guess that I really have to make us pass them now if we don't want to >>> look bad. But the quickCheckAPI.html test is giving me headaches: >>> >>> * at quickCheckAPI.js:1050, we have this expression: >>> >>> ximage instanceof ImageData >>> >>> and it gives me this error: 'ImageData is not defined' in Firefox 4. >>> Do you think that's a bug in Firefox? I thought, perhaps wrongly, that >>> such type names were considered an internal thing. >>> >>> * at quickCheckAPI.js:342, we have: >>> >>> img = document.createElement('img'); >>> img.width = w; img.height = h; >>> >>> which creates an image with 'void' image data, which generates an >>> exception in Firefox 4 when passed to texImage2D, but the test expects >>> that to work. Here I guess it really is a gray area? >>> >>> Unless you think that these are plain Firefox bugs, could we somehow >>> make it clear that more/ is not part of the conformance suite? Earlier >>> we had agreed to have the more/ tests not run by default by the online >>> runner, but I never took the time to write the patch (sorry). >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Benoit >>> ----------------------------------------------------------- >>> You are currently subscribed to public_webgl...@ >>> To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo...@ with >>> the following command in the body of your email: >>> unsubscribe public_webgl >>> ----------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> You are currently subscribed to public_webgl...@ >> To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo...@ with >> the following command in the body of your email: >> unsubscribe public_webgl >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > You are currently subscribed to public_webgl...@ > To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo...@ with > the following command in the body of your email: > unsubscribe public_webgl > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bja...@ Thu Mar 3 06:02:07 2011 From: bja...@ (Benoit Jacob) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 06:02:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Public WebGL] Firefox 4 driver blocklist now documented (and expanded) Message-ID: <1861019165.498040.1299160927434.JavaMail.root@cm-mail03.mozilla.org> Hi, No need anymore to look at our code, it's documented here: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Blocklisting/Blocked_Graphics_Drivers I hope that this is useful to other WebGL implementers. Benoit ----------------------------------------------------------- You are currently subscribed to public_webgl...@ To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo...@ with the following command in the body of your email: unsubscribe public_webgl ----------------------------------------------------------- From ste...@ Thu Mar 3 10:47:07 2011 From: ste...@ (ste...@) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:47:07 -0800 Subject: [Public WebGL] Firefox 4 driver blocklist now documented (and expanded) In-Reply-To: <1861019165.498040.1299160927434.JavaMail.root@cm-mail03.mozilla.org> References: <1861019165.498040.1299160927434.JavaMail.root@cm-mail03.mozilla.org> Message-ID: It's useful and greatly welcomed - thanks! We need to do more though. We have to explain more clearly to our end-users what they have to do to actually access WebGL-enabled sites - and that need is rapidly becoming critical. Having every application writer do a pile of complicated and frequently-changing tests in order to tell the poor user what's going wrong is a really REALLY bad idea because most sites simply won't do it. This needs to be offloaded to a one-time, centrally maintained, vendor-neutral web site, supported by the browser companies - and eventually, by hardware manufacturers too. I'm getting upwards of 100,000 unique visitors per month to my site. That's barely a blip - but we're not actively promoting it yet. The server stat's are instructive though. They suggest that less than 1% of those 100,000 people actually got a valid rendering context - so the other 99% were redirected to http://get.webgl.org Over the last few weeks, I broke out my stats by browser type and a clear majority of those who failed had evidently been running Chrome-9 or Firefox 4 beta! So they presumably failed because their chip/driver is blacklisted - or because it flat out doesn't work for some other reason. That suggests to me that get.webgl.org needs some improvement. At the very least, we need for it to say something other than "Your browser doesn't support WebGL" for blacklisted machines. Specifically, it needs to distinguish five different cases: 1) You really DO need to upgrade your browser (and here is the link to your browser's upgrade site to allow you to painlessly do that). 2) Your browser only supports WebGL in some unreleased beta/nightly build - so either switch to THIS browser (link) or if you're feeling brave, grab the beta/nightly build from HERE (link). 3) Your browser doesn't support WebGL at all - so you need to switch to a completely different browser (and here is a list of links to browsers that should work). 4) Your browser is just fine but the current version of your device driver is blacklisted and upgrading your device drivers should fix that. (We might also offer advice on how to override the blacklist "at your own risk"...but that's a bit controversial). 5) Your graphics card/cellphone/pad is a piece of junk (and here is a list of our sponsors who'll happily sell you a new one that DOES support WebGL). We definitely need something better. But I don't think it's possible to split out all of those five cases without help from the browser itself. -- Steve > Hi, > > No need anymore to look at our code, it's documented here: > https://wiki.mozilla.org/Blocklisting/Blocked_Graphics_Drivers > > I hope that this is useful to other WebGL implementers. > > Benoit > ----------------------------------------------------------- > You are currently subscribed to public_webgl...@ > To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo...@ with > the following command in the body of your email: > unsubscribe public_webgl > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > ----------------------------------------------------------- You are currently subscribed to public_webgl...@ To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo...@ with the following command in the body of your email: unsubscribe public_webgl ----------------------------------------------------------- From bja...@ Thu Mar 3 11:23:14 2011 From: bja...@ (Benoit Jacob) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:23:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Public WebGL] Firefox 4 driver blocklist now documented (and expanded) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1484841293.501546.1299180194746.JavaMail.root@cm-mail03.mozilla.org> ----- Original Message ----- > That suggests to me that get.webgl.org needs some improvement. At the > very least, we need for it to say something other than "Your browser > doesn't support WebGL" for blacklisted machines. It should be updated to listen to webglcontextcreationerror events. It's a pity that we couldn't implement it in Firefox 4 (because of the string freeze), but I would like us to return a localized string there in Firefox 5. Benoit ----------------------------------------------------------- You are currently subscribed to public_webgl...@ To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo...@ with the following command in the body of your email: unsubscribe public_webgl ----------------------------------------------------------- From cal...@ Thu Mar 3 15:47:47 2011 From: cal...@ (Mark Callow) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:47:47 -0800 Subject: [Public WebGL] WebGL 1.0 ratified and released Message-ID: <4D7028A3.4010001@hicorp.co.jp> I'm surprised nobody has posted this here yet... The WebGL 1.0 specification was ratified last Friday and released this morning at GDC in San Francisco. Here is the press release . Regards -Mark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: callow_mark.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 392 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gil...@ Thu Mar 3 17:06:03 2011 From: gil...@ (Giles Thomas) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 01:06:03 +0000 Subject: [Public WebGL] WebGL 1.0 ratified and released In-Reply-To: <4D7028A3.4010001@hicorp.co.jp> References: <4D7028A3.4010001@hicorp.co.jp> Message-ID: This is great news! The WebCL announcement is also intriguing. That said, the online version of the spec still says it's a "final draft"... Cheers, Giles 2011/3/3 Mark Callow > I'm surprised nobody has posted this here yet... > > The WebGL 1.0 specification was ratified last Friday and released this > morning at GDC in San Francisco. Here is the press release > . > > Regards > > -Mark > > > > > -- Giles Thomas giles...@ http://www.gilesthomas.com/ http://projectdirigible.com/ http://learningwebgl.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jda...@ Fri Mar 4 03:15:20 2011 From: jda...@ (John Davis) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 05:15:20 -0600 Subject: [Public WebGL] WebCL Message-ID: Where's the mailing list? JD -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tu...@ Fri Mar 4 03:24:04 2011 From: tu...@ (Thatcher Ulrich) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:24:04 +0100 Subject: [Public WebGL] WebGL 1.0 ratified and released In-Reply-To: <4D7028A3.4010001@hicorp.co.jp> References: <4D7028A3.4010001@hicorp.co.jp> Message-ID: 2011/3/4 Mark Callow : > I'm surprised nobody has posted this here yet... > > The WebGL 1.0 specification was ratified last Friday and released this > morning at GDC in San Francisco. Here is the press release. Woohoo! Big kudos to all you folks who made this happen! You've made the web platform much more exciting! -T ----------------------------------------------------------- You are currently subscribed to public_webgl...@ To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo...@ with the following command in the body of your email: unsubscribe public_webgl ----------------------------------------------------------- From ste...@ Fri Mar 4 05:21:54 2011 From: ste...@ (ste...@) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 05:21:54 -0800 Subject: [Public WebGL] WebGL 1.0 ratified and released In-Reply-To: <4D7028A3.4010001@hicorp.co.jp> References: <4D7028A3.4010001@hicorp.co.jp> Message-ID: <3633c9ff4016517cdb62a71747a9e128.squirrel@webmail.sjbaker.org> Congratulations! I've gotta say that this has been the smoothest, friendliest and most effective piece of web standardization effort I've ever participated in. I'm pleased to see that WebCL is heading in the same direction. I *really* wish we could get the audio side of things moving the same way instead of trying to continually re-invent the wheel though. -- Steve > I'm surprised nobody has posted this here yet... > > The WebGL 1.0 specification was ratified last Friday and released this > morning at GDC in San Francisco. Here is the press release > . > > Regards > > -Mark > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- You are currently subscribed to public_webgl...@ To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo...@ with the following command in the body of your email: unsubscribe public_webgl ----------------------------------------------------------- From jda...@ Sun Mar 6 07:57:02 2011 From: jda...@ (John Davis) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 09:57:02 -0600 Subject: [Public WebGL] Volume Textures Message-ID: Are any webgl implementations adding volume textures as an extension? This is pretty key for those of us needing fast 3D noise. Any updates on VTL in Angle? JD -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tu...@ Sun Mar 6 13:16:59 2011 From: tu...@ (Thatcher Ulrich) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 22:16:59 +0100 Subject: [Public WebGL] Volume Textures In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It doesn't seem that hard to simulate a volume texture using a large 2D texture. Am I wrong? -T On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:57 PM, John Davis wrote: > Are any webgl implementations adding volume textures as an extension? ?This > is pretty key for those of us needing fast 3D noise. > Any updates on VTL in Angle? > JD > ----------------------------------------------------------- You are currently subscribed to public_webgl...@ To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo...@ with the following command in the body of your email: unsubscribe public_webgl ----------------------------------------------------------- From jda...@ Sun Mar 6 14:44:12 2011 From: jda...@ (John Davis) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 16:44:12 -0600 Subject: [Public WebGL] Volume Textures In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Correct, but trilinear filtering in hardware is typically faster, and doesn't increase the instruction count. Not to mention, it's also much easier to have trilinear filtering that just works rather than implementing it with 2D. On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Thatcher Ulrich wrote: > It doesn't seem that hard to simulate a volume texture using a large > 2D texture. Am I wrong? > > -T > > On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:57 PM, John Davis > wrote: > > Are any webgl implementations adding volume textures as an extension? > This > > is pretty key for those of us needing fast 3D noise. > > Any updates on VTL in Angle? > > JD > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbr...@ Mon Mar 7 13:57:34 2011 From: kbr...@ (Kenneth Russell) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:57:34 -0800 Subject: [Public WebGL] Volume Textures In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: GL_OES_texture_3D seems to be unsupported on current iOS hardware, which means that content using that extension wouldn't be portable to a significant percentage of mobile devices. For this reason there currently is no plan to incorporate that extension into the WebGL registry as a "core" extension. A browser vendor would be welcome to add it as a vendor-specific extension. That having been said, the WebGL spec aims to track the OpenGL ES spec, and we anticipate a revision of the WebGL spec later this year which is likely to add this functionality. -Ken On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 2:44 PM, John Davis wrote: > Correct, but trilinear filtering in hardware is typically faster, and > doesn't increase the instruction count. ?Not to mention, it's also much > easier to have trilinear filtering that just works rather than implementing > it with 2D. > > On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Thatcher Ulrich wrote: >> >> It doesn't seem that hard to simulate a volume texture using a large >> 2D texture. ?Am I wrong? >> >> -T >> >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:57 PM, John Davis >> wrote: >> > Are any webgl implementations adding volume textures as an extension? >> > ?This >> > is pretty key for those of us needing fast 3D noise. >> > Any updates on VTL in Angle? >> > JD >> > >> > > ----------------------------------------------------------- You are currently subscribed to public_webgl...@ To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo...@ with the following command in the body of your email: unsubscribe public_webgl ----------------------------------------------------------- From ste...@ Mon Mar 7 15:33:31 2011 From: ste...@ (Steve Baker) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 17:33:31 -0600 Subject: [Public WebGL] Volume Textures In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D756B4B.5020101@sjbaker.org> If it's likely to happen, we should probably consider whether KTX files should support 3D textures. -- Steve On 03/07/2011 03:57 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote: > GL_OES_texture_3D seems to be unsupported on current iOS hardware, > which means that content using that extension wouldn't be portable to > a significant percentage of mobile devices. For this reason there > currently is no plan to incorporate that extension into the WebGL > registry as a "core" extension. A browser vendor would be welcome to > add it as a vendor-specific extension. > > That having been said, the WebGL spec aims to track the OpenGL ES > spec, and we anticipate a revision of the WebGL spec later this year > which is likely to add this functionality. > > -Ken > > On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 2:44 PM, John Davis wrote: > >> Correct, but trilinear filtering in hardware is typically faster, and >> doesn't increase the instruction count. Not to mention, it's also much >> easier to have trilinear filtering that just works rather than implementing >> it with 2D. >> >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Thatcher Ulrich wrote: >> >>> It doesn't seem that hard to simulate a volume texture using a large >>> 2D texture. Am I wrong? >>> >>> -T >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:57 PM, John Davis >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Are any webgl implementations adding volume textures as an extension? >>>> This >>>> is pretty key for those of us needing fast 3D noise. >>>> Any updates on VTL in Angle? >>>> JD >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > ----------------------------------------------------------- > You are currently subscribed to public_webgl...@ > To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo...@ with > the following command in the body of your email: > unsubscribe public_webgl > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > ----------------------------------------------------------- You are currently subscribed to public_webgl...@ To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo...@ with the following command in the body of your email: unsubscribe public_webgl ----------------------------------------------------------- From cma...@ Mon Mar 7 15:18:39 2011 From: cma...@ (Chris Marrin) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 15:18:39 -0800 Subject: [Public WebGL] WebGL 1.0 ratified and released In-Reply-To: <3633c9ff4016517cdb62a71747a9e128.squirrel@webmail.sjbaker.org> References: <4D7028A3.4010001@hicorp.co.jp> <3633c9ff4016517cdb62a71747a9e128.squirrel@webmail.sjbaker.org> Message-ID: On Mar 4, 2011, at 5:21 AM, steve...@ wrote: > > Congratulations! > > I've gotta say that this has been the smoothest, friendliest and most > effective piece of web standardization effort I've ever participated in. > > I'm pleased to see that WebCL is heading in the same direction. I > *really* wish we could get the audio side of things moving the same way > instead of trying to continually re-invent the wheel though. Are you saying you don't believe the Audio XG is going in the right direction? ----- ~Chris cmarrin...@ ----------------------------------------------------------- You are currently subscribed to public_webgl...@ To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo...@ with the following command in the body of your email: unsubscribe public_webgl ----------------------------------------------------------- From a71...@ Tue Mar 8 07:06:47 2011 From: a71...@ (Alberto La Rocca) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 16:06:47 +0100 Subject: [Public WebGL] broken link Message-ID: Hello; first time I write on this mailing list (but I've been lurking with enormous interest). Thank you everybody for the great work. I'd like to report a broken link on http://get.webgl.org/ , precisely on the version of the page that appears if a browser does NOT support WebGL; the link that should point to http://khronos.org/webgl/ actually points to unexisting http://khtonos.org/webgl/ (watch the T in khtonos). Thanks again guys, bye! ----------------------------------------------------------- You are currently subscribed to public_webgl...@ To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo...@ with the following command in the body of your email: unsubscribe public_webgl ----------------------------------------------------------- From a71...@ Tue Mar 8 07:18:44 2011 From: a71...@ (Alberto La Rocca) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 16:18:44 +0100 Subject: [Public WebGL] Re: broken link In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Moreover I think that on this page: http://khronos.org/webgl/wiki/Getting_a_WebGL_Implementation the initial notice should be updated; the current one says: "WebGL is currently under development, and is supported in the latest builds of several browsers. Here are instructions on how to obtain a copy of a browser supporting the provisional WebGL specification. As the specification nears completion, expect that browsers will have this functionality built in to their latest releases, and not require any manual steps to enable it." the specification has actually reached completion a few days ago with version 1.0, although I guess many other revision will be developed. In addition, most recent browser versions (GC9+, FF4b8+, WebKit) have WebGL already enabled by default and do not require manual steps in order to enable it. Bye again :) ----------------------------------------------------------- You are currently subscribed to public_webgl...@ To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo...@ with the following command in the body of your email: unsubscribe public_webgl ----------------------------------------------------------- From ste...@ Tue Mar 8 08:20:24 2011 From: ste...@ (ste...@) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:20:24 -0800 Subject: [Public WebGL] WebGL 1.0 ratified and released In-Reply-To: References: <4D7028A3.4010001@hicorp.co.jp> <3633c9ff4016517cdb62a71747a9e128.squirrel@webmail.sjbaker.org> Message-ID: <7aa3929c64c9b3762eefa9cb915f39f2.squirrel@webmail.sjbaker.org> > On Mar 4, 2011, at 5:21 AM, steve...@ wrote: >> >> Congratulations! >> >> I've gotta say that this has been the smoothest, friendliest and most >> effective piece of web standardization effort I've ever participated in. >> >> I'm pleased to see that WebCL is heading in the same direction. I >> *really* wish we could get the audio side of things moving the same way >> instead of trying to continually re-invent the wheel though. > > Are you saying you don't believe the Audio XG is going in the right > direction? Not exactly...but it's not what I (as an application author) need. I think it's a terrible idea to "reinvent the wheel". The success of WebGL (and, I confidently predict, the future success of WebCL) is due to the fact that: a) Development of the spec is fast because we're just specifying JS bindings for an existing, documented API. b) We know that the API we're cloning is complete, stable, useful, popular, portable, understood by developers and has 95% of the code already written. c) We have existing hardware-accelerated implementations - there are stable, well-supported, pre-existing drivers for us to "wrap". When you reinvent the wheel, you're in danger of missing stuff that's important, having to write a LOT of code that'll take a while to get stable, you'll be putting in features that developers don't need, etc. The god-awful