On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We had a meeting about this today, and there is one big issue with my
> proposal above. Because of the fact that extra dictionary members in the
> contextOptions arguments are ignored, this means that UA engines which have
> already shipped their implementation will happily accept
> |canvas.getContext("webgl", {version: 2})| and give you a context object
> which doesn't support what the author would expect, which would fail
> requirement 1 above.
>
> After going through the options a bit, it seems like the only sensible thing
> to do would be to use a new context name string, so that code which is
> written against WebGL2 will not work against an implementation which is
> unaware of this. We seemed to agree that "webgl2" would probably be as good
> of an option as any. So basically the current state of the proposal is to
> accept "webgl2" as the name of the context, return a WebGLRenderingContext,
> and extend that interface in the spec through a partial interface, making
> those methods throw "NotSupportedError" if you have received the context
> with the name "webgl".
>
> Sorry for the back and forth on this! What do people think of this proposal
> version N? :-)
Are we forever going to mint new version strings or are we going to
introduce a version parameter which is observed (until we decide to
prune the matrix a bit), this time around? If we're doing the latter,
maybe we should call the context id "3d" this time around...
--
http://annevankesteren.nl/
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
