[Public WebGL] proposal draft for EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic

Gregg Tavares (勤) [email protected]
Fri Feb 24 10:46:55 PST 2012


Yes, there's no reason to have UNSIGNED_INT on the OES_element_index_uint
object. See OES_texture_float. It has no new contants. It uses the existing
constant from WebGLRenderingContext


On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Patrick Baggett <[email protected]
> wrote:

>
>> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://khronos.org/pipermail/public_webgl_khronos.org/attachments/20120224/386855ef/attachment.html>


More information about the public_webgl mailing list