[Public WebGL] proposal draft for EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic
Fri Feb 24 10:45:51 PST 2012
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Benoit Jacob <[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.
> 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.
How does that require amending the spec? To write "UNSIGNED_INT" is allowed
if this extension is enabled? Isn't that the purpose of the extension text?
Anyways, if you specify "FLOAT", it is rejected; why would it require
explicit language for negative cases?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the public_webgl