On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoi...@gmail.com> wrote: > My concrete example is WebGL extensions. These go through 4 stages: > 1. "proposal": no browser must implement it. > 2. "draft": implementations must use a vendor prefix.
I think stage 2 is a bug to the extent stage 2 reaches the release channel. > 3. "community approved": implementation without prefix is allowed. > 4. "official": same as 3. as far as the present discussion is concerned. > > See http://www.khronos.org/registry/webgl/extensions/ > > My point is that if we apply a strict no-prefixes policy to WebGL > extensions, we are going to have to remove support for all WebGL draft > extensions. No. There’s the alternative of shipping those features without prefix. > Currently this includes all WebGL compressed texture > formats as well as depth textures. No compressed textures means no > advanced games. If it’s something we’d evangelize Web developers to use, I think we should ship the feature without prefix and then not break the advanced games that started using the feature. After all, it would be bad to lure advanced games into using a feature we’ll break later! > but the above describes what we have agreed on in the > WebGL WG. I think we shouldn’t agree to WG policies that involve shipping to the release channel with prefix. However, it is considered important that we not reneg on a promise already made in the WebGL WG, I would rather exclude WebGL from what I proposed than keep proliferating prefixes in other APIs. Fortunately, as far as I know, for the vast majority of APIs (everything except WebGL and CSSOM) there is no promise made in a WG. -- Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
