4 ms·

1. First I heard about GLSL custom CSS filters. Is this on track to being standardized? I suspect Microsoft would never support it, for example. 2. Chrome Apps

by azakai 14y ago

1. First I heard about GLSL custom CSS filters. Is this on track to being standardized? I suspect Microsoft would never support it, for example. 2. Chrome Apps? What does that have to do with the web? It's a Chrome thing, not a web thing (those apps don't run anywhere else). I guess the author is a Chrome fan based on the end of the article though so that figures. 3. No WebRTC, and no WebGL? Perhaps ironic I mention it given my point #1, but these two are going to make huge strides in 2013, and their effects are much larger than nicer CSS filters.

bcoates 14y ago
Isn't WebGL still a disaster that bears an uncanny resemblance to a C .h file mechanically transformed into a browser API?
- azakai 14y ago
  No, not by any reasonable account.
  - bcoates 14y ago
    http://www.khronos.org/files/webgl/webgl-reference-card-1_0.pdf http://www.khronos.org/files/webgl/webgl-reference-card-1_0.... http://www.khronos.org/files/opengles3-quick-reference-card.pdf http://www.khronos.org/files/opengles3-quick-reference-card.... Look at the sources to http://media.tojicode.com/q3bsp/ http://media.tojicode.com/q3bsp/ Notice the clunky transitions between Javascript and some degenerate form of C where everything is a member function of some hairy stateful singleton global object. Oh, and all that matrix math isn't part of WebGL, the API neither provides graphics-specific utility functions nor general-purpose math operations. You have to roll it yourself in Javascript. You know, the way you have to write your own layout engine to write a 2d webpage? This is all before we even get to the shader, where they just threw up their hands and said, "fuck it, let's have them send GLSL source as a wire protocol" Also, security problems, weird device whitelist/blacklist, Microsoft's reasonable "hell no" stance, etc. Taking WebGL seriously is sucking the air out of the room and preventing progress on satisfying the demand for sane 3d on the web.
bzbarsky 14y ago
Yeah, it's amusing how the article talks about things that have been shipping in browsers other than Chrome for years (generators, say) and only talks about Chrome supporting them...
magicalist 14y ago
To answer (1): http://www.w3.org/TR/filter-effects/ http://www.w3.org/TR/filter-effects/ I don't really see them making a large impact in 2013, but we may see them on by default in a shipping browser...we'll see. Working group(s) discussion has been happening for quite a while now, though. Microsoft has indeed already stated that they would prefer not to specify the particular shading language that needs to be used. There was quite a long discussion on that point, as you can imagine: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2012JulSep/0074.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2012JulSep/007...
- rurounijones 14y ago
  Wow that second link makes for some seriously entertaining reading. Recommended for anyone who hasn't seen an industry standards body forum before. Warning: It may shatter (or confirm) your preconceptions quite strongly
  - magicalist 14y ago
    It was a really poor showing, and not at all productive. Keep in mind, though, that the mailing lists for the SVG and CSS working groups are open to the public, so while it was bound to get contentious, the completely unhelpful flaming was not coming from an actual member of those groups (at least not at the start). If anyone is interested in participating in these kinds of discussions, please keep in mind that reenacting your own take on Eternal September is not helpful in any way. Acclimatize. Entrenchment and flame wars only gets us html5 <video> and EcmaScript 4.
- azakai 14y ago
  Thanks for the link, very interesting stuff.
anotherbadlogin 14y ago
Amen to #2. Who gives a shit about features of a single browser? That isn't going to "transform the Web." If those features became widespread, it would represent a major regression. And CSS gimmicks like blurs and warps are just more sad lipstick on the pig that is HTML. The Web needs an entirely new presentation language, not more band-aids on what has become a laughable hack.

by azakai 14y ago

bcoates 14y ago

Isn't WebGL still a disaster that bears an uncanny resemblance to a C .h file mechanically transformed into a browser API?

azakai 14y ago
No, not by any reasonable account.
- bcoates 14y ago
  http://www.khronos.org/files/webgl/webgl-reference-card-1_0.pdf http://www.khronos.org/files/webgl/webgl-reference-card-1_0.... http://www.khronos.org/files/opengles3-quick-reference-card.pdf http://www.khronos.org/files/opengles3-quick-reference-card.... Look at the sources to http://media.tojicode.com/q3bsp/ http://media.tojicode.com/q3bsp/ Notice the clunky transitions between Javascript and some degenerate form of C where everything is a member function of some hairy stateful singleton global object. Oh, and all that matrix math isn't part of WebGL, the API neither provides graphics-specific utility functions nor general-purpose math operations. You have to roll it yourself in Javascript. You know, the way you have to write your own layout engine to write a 2d webpage? This is all before we even get to the shader, where they just threw up their hands and said, "fuck it, let's have them send GLSL source as a wire protocol" Also, security problems, weird device whitelist/blacklist, Microsoft's reasonable "hell no" stance, etc. Taking WebGL seriously is sucking the air out of the room and preventing progress on satisfying the demand for sane 3d on the web.

bzbarsky 14y ago

Yeah, it's amusing how the article talks about things that have been shipping in browsers other than Chrome for years (generators, say) and only talks about Chrome supporting them...

magicalist 14y ago

To answer (1): http://www.w3.org/TR/filter-effects/ http://www.w3.org/TR/filter-effects/ I don't really see them making a large impact in 2013, but we may see them on by default in a shipping browser...we'll see. Working group(s) discussion has been happening for quite a while now, though. Microsoft has indeed already stated that they would prefer not to specify the particular shading language that needs to be used. There was quite a long discussion on that point, as you can imagine: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2012JulSep/0074.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2012JulSep/007...

rurounijones 14y ago
Wow that second link makes for some seriously entertaining reading. Recommended for anyone who hasn't seen an industry standards body forum before. Warning: It may shatter (or confirm) your preconceptions quite strongly
- magicalist 14y ago
  It was a really poor showing, and not at all productive. Keep in mind, though, that the mailing lists for the SVG and CSS working groups are open to the public, so while it was bound to get contentious, the completely unhelpful flaming was not coming from an actual member of those groups (at least not at the start). If anyone is interested in participating in these kinds of discussions, please keep in mind that reenacting your own take on Eternal September is not helpful in any way. Acclimatize. Entrenchment and flame wars only gets us html5 <video> and EcmaScript 4.
azakai 14y ago
Thanks for the link, very interesting stuff.

anotherbadlogin 14y ago

Amen to #2. Who gives a shit about features of a single browser? That isn't going to "transform the Web." If those features became widespread, it would represent a major regression. And CSS gimmicks like blurs and warps are just more sad lipstick on the pig that is HTML. The Web needs an entirely new presentation language, not more band-aids on what has become a laughable hack.