Khronos Group Appears To Be Readying For WebGL-Next Proposals

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • phoronix
    Administrator
    • Jan 2007
    • 67109
    #1

    Khronos Group Appears To Be Readying For WebGL-Next Proposals

    Phoronix: Khronos Group Appears To Be Readying For WebGL-Next Proposals

    Separate from Apple's recent proposals around WebGPU as a new low-level graphics API for the web, The Khronos Group appears to be readying to solicit ideas for "WebGL Next" as their next-gen web graphics API...

    Khronos Group Appears To Be Readying For WebGL-Next Proposals - Phoronix
    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=WebGL-Next-Proposals-Repo
    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite
    Tags: None
  • plonoma
    Senior Member
    • Sep 2010
    • 869
    #2
    Going to the Khronos page of WebGL 2.0.
    WebGL 2.0 Specification
    https://www.khronos.org/registry/webgl/specs/latest/2.0/

    We can find the following information:
    This context allows rendering using an API that conforms closely to the OpenGL ES 3.0 API.
    The latest OpenGL ES specification is 3.2.
    Why not just create WebGL 3.0 around OpenGL ES 3.1?
    And following that up with WebGL 3.1/4.0 around OpenGL ES 3.2.

    And I would suggest to not use the name WebGL when going to other API's.
    Reserve the WebGL name for web API's based around OpenGL (ES), don't use it for other technologies.
    Let other API's have their own distinct identity from the start by using another name for other technologies.

    Comment

    • boffo
      Senior Member
      • Aug 2013
      • 319
      #3
      Originally posted by plonoma View Post
      Going to the Khronos page of WebGL 2.0.
      WebGL 2.0 Specification
      https://www.khronos.org/registry/webgl/specs/latest/2.0/

      We can find the following information:


      The latest OpenGL ES specification is 3.2.
      Why not just create WebGL 3.0 around OpenGL ES 3.1?
      And following that up with WebGL 3.1/4.0 around OpenGL ES 3.2.

      And I would suggest to not use the name WebGL when going to other API's.
      Reserve the WebGL name for web API's based around OpenGL (ES), don't use it for other technologies.
      Let other API's have their own distinct identity from the start by using another name for other technologies.
      Probably because mobile devices need to be efficient, so a Vulkan api could be better used to have a longer battery. And mobile devices are all about the web.

      Comment

      • plonoma
        Senior Member
        • Sep 2010
        • 869
        #4
        Originally posted by boffo View Post

        Probably because mobile devices need to be efficient, so a Vulkan api could be better used to have a longer battery. And mobile devices are all about the web.
        That's why I'm talking about and currently WebGL is based on OpenGL ES,
        not desktop or full blown OpenGL.

        Comment

        Previous template Next
        Working...
        X