2014-05-07 15:09 GMT-04:00 Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com>:
> We had a meeting about this today, and there is one big issue with my
> proposal above. Because of the fact that extra dictionary members in the
> contextOptions arguments are ignored, this means that UA engines which have
> already shipped their implementation will happily accept
> |canvas.getContext("webgl", {version: 2})| and give you a context object
> which doesn't support what the author would expect, which would fail
> requirement 1 above.
>
> After going through the options a bit, it seems like the only sensible
> thing to do would be to use a new context name string, so that code which
> is written against WebGL2 will not work against an implementation which is
> unaware of this. We seemed to agree that "webgl2" would probably be as
> good of an option as any. So basically the current state of the proposal
> is to accept "webgl2" as the name of the context, return a
> WebGLRenderingContext, and extend that interface in the spec through a
> partial interface, making those methods throw "NotSupportedError" if you
> have received the context with the name "webgl".
>
> Sorry for the back and forth on this! What do people think of this
> proposal version N? :-)
I agree with this plan.
The change back to a "webgl2" context id is mostly a detail --- the bigger
part of the plan, which is basically to avoid introducing separate Web
interfaces for each new WebGL version or feature, remains unchanged.
Benoit
>
>
> Cheers,
> Ehsan
> _______________________________________________
> dev-platform mailing list
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
