On Wed 07 May 2014 12:42:07 PM PDT, Benoit Jacob wrote:
> 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.
"webgl2+" ? </bikeshed>
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
