On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Vladimir Vukicevic <vladim...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Defining every feature of WebGL 2 as an extension would result in a huge >> amount of busy work > > It could just be a single "extension" as bz suggested earlier in the thread.
I'd like to see an answer why this or Ehsan's |instanceof WebGL2RenderingContext| wouldn't be a better solutions than having versioned context names. (These alternatives still involve versioning and versioning is an anti-pattern on the Web, but I find the need to leak the versioning of the underlying hardware persuasive enough.) In general, I'm worried about groups that are rather isolated and that have non-Web background members making decisions that go against the Web wisdom gained from painful experience. For example, it's sad that TC39 was isolated enough and had programming language background (as opposed to Web background) population to the extent that it made the "use strict" mistake despite the experience the it was a mistake to e.g. toggle CSS box sizing using the doctype-triggered document-global mode instead of introducing the box-sizing property. (Yes, I know Gecko never toggled box-sizing, but it's an example that was true of some browsers and today has a real CSS property.) WebGL already made the Web little-endian forever. The bright side is emscripten, but it still worries me that the group that gave us the little-endian Web feels that it's OK to go against the way Web APIs are supposed to handle growth because their API is different. -- Henri Sivonen hsivo...@hsivonen.fi https://hsivonen.fi/ _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
