On Tuesday 2014-05-06 10:15 -0700, Ralph Giles wrote: > It looks like doing so would violate to webgl1 spec. "An attempt to use > any features of an extension without first calling getExtension to > enable it must generate an appropriate GL error and must not make use of > the feature." https://www.khronos.org/registry/webgl/specs/1.0/#5.14.14
This model generally isn't how extensibility/versioning has been done on the Web platform. On the other hand, it's a model that's less problematic than most of the alternatives that have been proposed, in that it does deal reasonably with multiple implementations and iterative addition of features. The main problem I see is the implementation cost that Anne mentioned: as all these extensions accumulate, that requires implementations to track (forever) which extensions have been requested and whether the API being used has been properly requested. As more and more extensions accumulate, this code could become complicated, possibly even with complexity worse than O(N) in the number of extensions or versions. I also wonder if there's a tension here relating to the target audience. Is WebGL intended primarily for porting applications written for other platforms (and with those other platforms practices and conventions in mind) or primarily for authors building things on the Web platform (and accustomed to its conventions)? -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
