2012/11/8 Henri Sivonen <hsivo...@iki.fi>: > 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.
However, it is not a bug that get to fix by ourselves: moving to stage 3 requires WG approval. > >> 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. That requires moving to stage 3. Requires WG approval. > >> 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! That's a theoretical problem only so far: in practive, since the un-prefixed extension generally behaves exactly like the prefixed one, websites have been good at trying getting both and using whatever they get. > >> 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. We have to find common ground with other browser vendors. Do feel free to join the WG mailing list (public_webgl@khronos) and try to convince everyone, though you may want to check the archives first. > 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. I agree that excluding WebGL from the scope of this discussion is the most likely useful course of action. Benoit > > -- > 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 _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
