[Public WebGL] proposal draft for EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic

Benoit Jacob [email protected]
Fri Feb 24 10:36:17 PST 2012

> Agree that we should formalize the process. I believe the
> implementation lifetime should be as follows:
>   - Proposal: for discussion on the public mailing list only, in
>   order
> to move to draft status. Must not be implemented by any vendor in
> this
> form.
>   - Draft: may be implemented with vendor prefix. For experimentation
> purposes, to gain experience with the extension before finalizing.
>   - Ratified: should be implemented without vendor prefix. Should not
> be removed except if there is a security issue or similar.
> Thoughts?

OK to formalize the notion that proposals should be made drafts before implementation starts (will do next time).

Could we also formalize that once an extension is ratified, not only it should be implemented without vendor prefix, but any browser that already has an implementation with prefix should remove support for the prefixed extension string as soon as possible, even if this breaks content?

> Also, I'd like to propose we move OES_element_index_uint and
> WEBGL_depth_texture from proposal state to draft state; these seem
> non-controversial. Objections or support?

About OES_element_index_uint, is there a use case where this is a significant performance win, or is this is just a convenience extension? Is it worth the portability issues it introduces?

I support depth textures.


>   https://cvs.khronos.org/svn/repos/registry/trunk/public/webgl/extensions/proposals/
>   http://www.khronos.org/registry/webgl/extensions/proposals/OES_element_index_uint/
>   http://www.khronos.org/registry/webgl/extensions/proposals/WEBGL_depth_texture/
> -Ken

You are currently subscribed to [email protected]
To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with
the following command in the body of your email:
unsubscribe public_webgl

More information about the public_webgl mailing list