2012/11/8 Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoi...@gmail.com>: > 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.
To be clear though: if we strongly think that the current WebGL extension prefix rules are not acceptable to us, we can very much do something about it. When I proposed forcible removal of support for prefixes in all browsers as soon as an extension reaches "community approved" (stage 3) status, the objection to my proposal was that each browser vendor should be free to decide that for itself. By that logic then, I suppose that we should also be free to ship extensions unprefixed whenever we want to. I suppose I'm not experienced enough to decide by myself if the WebGL WG's lean in favor of prefixing draft extensions should be regarded as binding us. Benoit > > 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
