It's going to "support" WebGL.
IE11 to support WebGL
81–90 of 136 posts
Re: IE11 to support WebGL
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Any browser that doesn't implement WebGL will soon be considered crippled" Really? I don't think WebGL is that important. What's it really good for besides laggy browser games? What's with the hype on browser games anyway? They're always going to perform much slower than native code. I don't see WebGL becoming such a critical aspect of browsing that the average user would consider IE "crippled" for not supporting it…
Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to dream up an amazing and popular application of WebGL, now that a majority of web browsers will be supporting it. It might not be a game. Warning: imagination required.
It's hard to dream big about the browsers getting the modern iteration of something we've had in some form since 1992.
Re: IE11 to support WebGL
#83What engineering did they do to reduce the security risk? As much as I like WebGL as a dev, Microsoft's arguments against feeding arbitrary machine code to buggy graphics cards that have kernel-level memory access privileges... seemed a bit convincing.
The security claims were bullshit. For details see:
http://games.greggman.com/game/webgl-security-and-microsoft-...
tl;dr: While it was talking up the security risk of WebGL, Microsoft was allowing Silverlight to permit untrusted code to access graphics APIs in exactly the same way. Chrome validates everything before calling the actual driver APIs, so the opportunities for fuzzing are limited.
Re: IE11 to support WebGL
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
And they supported those mostly working implementations for about 6 weeks. Microsoft supports their releases for years.
Is that even true now that IE11 keeps itself auto-updated to the latest major version?
The support lifecycle still will be the same as far that I can tell.
Re: IE11 to support WebGL
#85the dev tools look promising. But I do not understand what are they are trying to achieve by this. I do not see myself, or many people, switching to IE for development when there are no extensions available. I at least want some REST client like Postman. Now It appears they are only catching up on Chrome and Firebug, that will hardly convince anybody. Do not get me wrong, they are doing good work making IE modern bro…
> But I do not understand what are they are trying to achieve by this. I do not see myself, or many people, switching to IE for development
Perhaps there are others who have to support IE as a target and would like to debug/verify front ends in-browser?
Re: IE11 to support WebGL
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually I groan when people complain about the Malware features in Chrome in relation to privacy but this is definitely one I'd not heard of. The hash of the whole file is bad enough, but even if it were unique, the full URL could easily contain sensitive information or information about the file contents.
why wouldn't it be a hash of the download URL only?
No idea, I'm taking the GP at their word, their phrasing made me think that they work in the browser space and know that as a fact.
I can't say I've inspected Chrome specifically in Wireshark, nor looked at the code, so I will refrain from making any claims; I simply don't know.
Re: IE11 to support WebGL
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am surprised they didnt try to push a webdx based off directx.
They did, sort of[1], it didn't appear to fly. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2012JulSep/007...
I dunno... Allowing the language to be selected like a video codec or image file format seems like a reasonable request.
There are three issues:
1) Language pluggable?
2) Spec-ed shader languages
3) Mandatory languages
The proposal was:
1) No
2 & 3) GL SL ES
Microsoft proposed:
1) Yes
2) GL SL ES
3) None
The perfectly reasonable compromise would have been:
1) Yes
2 & 3) GL SL ES
Re: IE11 to support WebGL
#88What engineering did they do to reduce the security risk? As much as I like WebGL as a dev, Microsoft's arguments against feeding arbitrary machine code to buggy graphics cards that have kernel-level memory access privileges... seemed a bit convincing.
Just want to reply to say I also would like to hear an answer to this question. Something I've wanted to do for a while is write a fuzzer [1] that puts together arbitrary garbage shader script code and runs it with weird webgl operations looking for exploitable crashes. I would expect there to be a ton of bugs found, but then again the monetary barrier to entry might be high considering differences between hardware.…
Here's a WebGL fuzzer from Mozilla bug 614678:
https://bug614678.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=493...
Re: IE11 to support WebGL
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did, sort of[1], it didn't appear to fly. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2012JulSep/007...
I dunno... Allowing the language to be selected like a video codec or image file format seems like a reasonable request. There are three issues: 1) Language pluggable? 2) Spec-ed shader languages 3) Mandatory languages The proposal was: 1) No 2 & 3) GL SL ES Microsoft proposed: 1) Yes 2) GL SL ES 3) None The perfectly reasonable compromise would have been: 1) Yes 2 & 3) GL SL ES
It may sound reasonable, but ultimately is against the universal spirit of the web, and thus should not be standardized. Your #1 should be No, because if it were Yes, we'd have a mess of mutually incompatible, vendor-specific, proprietary languages fragmenting 3D content on the web.
Re: IE11 to support WebGL
#90Credit to Microsoft for reversing their previous stance on WebGL. Credit to Mozilla for pushing 3d on the web and forcing the issue. Any browser that doesn't implement WebGL will soon be considered crippled; Microsoft desperately wants to avoid that title again, so in a way, Mozilla forced their hand. Competition at work.
"Any browser that doesn't implement WebGL will soon be considered crippled" Really? I don't think WebGL is that important. What's it really good for besides laggy browser games? What's with the hype on browser games anyway? They're always going to perform much slower than native code. I don't see WebGL becoming such a critical aspect of browsing that the average user would consider IE "crippled" for not supporting it…
Here's one application: http://youtu.be/zB7QEFCR1Zk?t=16m59s