[Public WebGL] proposal draft for EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic

Florian Bösch [email protected]
Fri Feb 24 10:40:03 PST 2012


On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Kenneth Russell <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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?
>
I think that's fine, but it would need some definition as to how things
move into proposal and into draft. I'd also like to suggest extensions get
a champion or somesuch, which is basically the go-to person for questions
about it and who is interested to supply patches to the specification,
implementations and conformance tests.

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?
>
No objection to move these to draft state. They're both a little more
involved to implement and the sooner we start, the sooner we'll have some
test implementations.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://khronos.org/pipermail/public_webgl_khronos.org/attachments/20120224/4ffba4c8/attachment.html>


More information about the public_webgl mailing list