[Public WebGL] proposal draft for EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic

Benoit Jacob [email protected]
Fri Feb 24 10:43:15 PST 2012


----- Original Message -----

> > Would that mean that the getExtension calls adds a new property to
> > the existing context object? That sounds a bit scary, and has
> > corner
> > cases that I'm not sure how to specify. What happens if the user
> > has
> > already defined a UNSIGNED_INT property on it? Should it then be
> > replaced? I'd rather keep it on the extension object.
> 

> I was thinking that the context would already have the UNSIGNED_INT
> property, which would simply be rejected unless the extension was
> enabled. It doesn't seem like UNSIGNED_INT is really specific to
> that extension.
OK, that's sensible, the only problem is that this requires a new version of the WebGL spec, as opposed to just requiring an extension. _If_ there is consensus that we want the index_uint extension, then I'd be OK with your proposal for 1.0.2. 

Benoit 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://khronos.org/pipermail/public_webgl_khronos.org/attachments/20120224/dfeb8985/attachment.html>


More information about the public_webgl mailing list