> WebGL and WebRTC are JavaScript APIs I don't think that's a fair description. Yes, WebGL is a JS API but it is basically an entire interface to an OpenGL dri

> WebGL and WebRTC are JavaScript APIs I don't think that's a fair description. Yes, WebGL is a JS API but it is basically an entire interface to an OpenGL driver, it exposes a completely new language to the web (GLSL, OpenGL shading language), and it opens up huge new possibilities to the web platform. It has it's own standards group for good reason. It is not just a small incremental JavaScript API addition. Similarly, WebRTC brings with it codecs and networking capabilities far beyond what was possible before, but I do agree with you there that it is more incremental. But it is also not a mere "JavaScript API"; it is a networking API for the web. The web uses JavaScript, so it has a JavaScript interface. If it were meant to interface with GPU shaders, it would have a GLSL interface too, etc. > [WebGL and WebRTC are] not alternatives to core web technologies. Interestingly, one of Microsoft's objections to WebGL was that it competed with core web technologies. The argument was that hardware accelerated rendering was already possible through canvas and CSS. Technically that's true, but of course it misses the point that it gives full programmable GPU control, which canvas and CSS do not. But Microsoft did have a point, in that if you look at many graphical applications on the web, a lot of them can render to either canvas2D or WebGL. In some sense, the two do compete. There is also lots of experience with competing APIs. Like Pointer and Touch events, WebRTC and Microsoft's alternative, etc. So that something is an alternative to part of the web stack doesn't mean the standards process can't work for it.