Closed
Bug 1023553
Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
WebGL exposes some Draft extensions without having them behind the draft flag
Categories
(Core :: Graphics: CanvasWebGL, defect)
Core
Graphics: CanvasWebGL
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla33
People
(Reporter: jgilbert, Assigned: jgilbert)
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
2.42 KB,
patch
|
u480271
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
This is mostly my fault for not realizing this as we put together our patches for these extensions. The following extensions are Draft extensions, and should be hidden behind a pref: EXT_color_buffer_half_float EXT_sRGB WEBGL_color_buffer_float WEBGL_compressed_texture_atc WEBGL_compressed_texture_etc1 WEBGL_compressed_texture_pvrtc We should try to promote these, and failing that (for a convincing reason), probably try to put them back under the flag. People *shouldn't* be using these widely, since no one else exposes them unconditionally. The only thing we need to watch out for is Apps on our platforms, which might have chosen to take advantage of one or more of these. Push comes to shove, we may be able to expose these only to Apps, but no longer to general webpages. That said, we should not forever be gated on there being two+ implementing UAs as a criteria for promotion from Draft.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•10 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8449827 -
Flags: review?(dglastonbury)
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•10 years ago
|
||
A bunch of extensions were promoted past draft, so the only draft extensions we need to worry about right now are: EXT_color_buffer_half_float WEBGL_color_buffer_float
Comment on attachment 8449827 [details] [diff] [review] draft-exts Review of attachment 8449827 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Do we need to audit all the extensions?
Attachment #8449827 -
Flags: review?(dglastonbury) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Dan Glastonbury :djg :kamidphish from comment #3) > Comment on attachment 8449827 [details] [diff] [review] > draft-exts > > Review of attachment 8449827 [details] [diff] [review]: > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Do we need to audit all the extensions? Not sure what you mean by 'audit'. What we need to do is propose a new pair of extensions which expose similar functionality, but are unobjectionable to the rest of the working group. (Largely, this means implementability on ANGLE)
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•10 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/7535d57be721
Comment 6•10 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/7535d57be721
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla33
Jeff, I meant audit in the sense of making sure all our extensions are currently exposed properly according to draft/community/etc status?
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Dan Glastonbury :djg :kamidphish from comment #7) > Jeff, > I meant audit in the sense of making sure all our extensions are currently > exposed properly according to draft/community/etc status? Ah, I checked after the most recent round of extensions were promoted, so we should be good now.
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•