[Public WebGL] EXT_texture_storage

Kenneth Russell [email protected]
Tue Jan 3 21:29:29 PST 2017

I agree that it'd be better to reject this extension rather than move it
forward. Now that WebGL 2.0's on the verge of shipping in multiple
browsers, I think we should encourage more implementations rather than
continue to add extensions to WebGL 1.0.

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Zhenyao Mo <[email protected]> wrote:

> My main concern is we won't have full EXT_texture_storage on top of DX9,
> on which some WebGL1 implementations are based.
> To me, a better path is just to switch to WebGL2 whenever it's possible,
> where texture storage is part of core.
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Florian Bösch <[email protected]> wrote:
>> No change has occured on https://www.khronos.org/regist
>> ry/webgl/extensions/proposals/EXT_texture_storage/ since September 2015
>> Can this extension be elevated to draft?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://khronos.org/pipermail/public_webgl_khronos.org/attachments/20170103/d6b8425c/attachment.html>

More information about the public_webgl mailing list