[Public WebGL] proposal draft for EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic
Fri Feb 24 15:29:41 PST 2012
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Ben Vanik <[email protected]> wrote:
How you structure your application and what you prefer doing with your
namespaces has no bearing on the discussion.
> 2) WebGL has tried to keep the API and constants as similar to GL as
> possible to aid in porting code/readability/discovery/etc. It of course is
> not 100% the same, but one of the goals is to not break from GL where not
> required. In this case, it's not required. Since the extension is EXT_....
> and is designed to map to it, it follows that the constants and functions
> inside of it should be 1:1. If not, it shouldn't be prefixed with EXT_ for
> the same reasons.
3) The existing extensions are already following the pattern - as a bit of
> a pedant, it pains me to see inconsistency forming in the WebGL specs so
> early without good reason. Either we go back and change the existing specs,
> or we keep the new ones consistent. Since we can't go back and change the
> ratified specs without breaking code, I vote for keeping things the same.
I do concede the point, it is inconsistent to other extensions thus far.
Interestingly I did not notice that (and neither did anybody else except
you), which kind of illustrates an intuitive point about it. On any
account, I can provide patches to the specification and implementations if
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the public_webgl