[Public WebGL] EXT_texture_storage

Jeff Gilbert [email protected]
Thu Jan 5 17:03:59 PST 2017


Let's reject. It'd be nice to have, but its potential impact seems minimal.

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Kenneth Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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/registry/webgl/extensions/proposals/EXT_texture_storage/
>>> since September 2015
>>>
>>> Can this extension be elevated to draft?
>>
>>
>

-----------------------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to [email protected]
To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with
the following command in the body of your email:
unsubscribe public_webgl
-----------------------------------------------------------





More information about the public_webgl mailing list