Windowing(DirectX/OpenGL)

#**111** 04-13-2005, 10:25 PM

WTH wrote:

> That still doesn't answer the question. You post about extensions existing
> in the Microsoft implementation in 1.1, I said that they weren't used in
> Microsoft's 1.0 implementation. How does your statement affect that one?

Consulting another source -- the OpenGL spec -- the appendices for 1.1
talk about the extensions that have been approved to move into the core
for 1.1.

> The problem being that it IS a formal process to become an ARB extension.

True, but not particularly important. ALL extensions come from the same
wellsprings of inspiration; some are adopted by multiple vendors, some
are approved by the ARB as either EXT or ARB. The extension mechanism
hasn't changed.

--
Andy V

#**112** 04-13-2005, 10:25 PM

WTH wrote:

> That still doesn't answer the question. You post about extensions existing
> in the Microsoft implementation in 1.1, I said that they weren't used in
> Microsoft's 1.0 implementation. How does your statement affect that one?

Consulting another source -- the OpenGL spec -- the appendices for 1.1
talk about the extensions that have been approved to move into the core
for 1.1.

> The problem being that it IS a formal process to become an ARB extension.

True, but not particularly important. ALL extensions come from the same
wellsprings of inspiration; some are adopted by multiple vendors, some
are approved by the ARB as either EXT or ARB. The extension mechanism
hasn't changed.

--
Andy V

#**113** 04-14-2005, 12:02 AM

Andy V <nobody@nowhere.net> loquated like no one had ever loquated before
with:

> WTH wrote:
>
>> That still doesn't answer the question. You post about extensions
>> existing in the Microsoft implementation in 1.1, I said that they
>> weren't used in Microsoft's 1.0 implementation. How does your
>> statement affect that one?
>
> Consulting another source -- the OpenGL spec -- the appendices for 1.1
> talk about the extensions that have been approved to move into the
> core for 1.1.

? Yet again, what was the purpose of that statement? Is it to refute
something I said? Is it a tangential assertion?

>
>> The problem being that it IS a formal process to become an ARB
>> extension.
>
> True, but not particularly important. ALL extensions come from the
> same wellsprings of inspiration; some are adopted by multiple
> vendors, some are approved by the ARB as either EXT or ARB. The
> extension mechanism hasn't changed.

Either you're now talking about the programmatic implementation of
extensions (which has evolved) or you're talking about the process of
extensions moving from vendor extensions to ARB extensions which is an
example of the extension registry evolving.

WTH

#**114** 04-14-2005, 12:02 AM

Andy V <nobody@nowhere.net> loquated like no one had ever loquated before
with:

> WTH wrote:
>
>> That still doesn't answer the question. You post about extensions
>> existing in the Microsoft implementation in 1.1, I said that they
>> weren't used in Microsoft's 1.0 implementation. How does your
>> statement affect that one?
>
> Consulting another source -- the OpenGL spec -- the appendices for 1.1
> talk about the extensions that have been approved to move into the
> core for 1.1.

? Yet again, what was the purpose of that statement? Is it to refute
something I said? Is it a tangential assertion?

>
>> The problem being that it IS a formal process to become an ARB
>> extension.
>
> True, but not particularly important. ALL extensions come from the
> same wellsprings of inspiration; some are adopted by multiple
> vendors, some are approved by the ARB as either EXT or ARB. The
> extension mechanism hasn't changed.

Either you're now talking about the programmatic implementation of
extensions (which has evolved) or you're talking about the process of
extensions moving from vendor extensions to ARB extensions which is an
example of the extension registry evolving.

WTH

#**115** 04-14-2005, 12:02 AM

Andy V <nobody@nowhere.net> loquated like no one had ever loquated before
with:

> WTH wrote:
>
>> That still doesn't answer the question. You post about extensions
>> existing in the Microsoft implementation in 1.1, I said that they
>> weren't used in Microsoft's 1.0 implementation. How does your
>> statement affect that one?
>
> Consulting another source -- the OpenGL spec -- the appendices for 1.1
> talk about the extensions that have been approved to move into the
> core for 1.1.

? Yet again, what was the purpose of that statement? Is it to refute
something I said? Is it a tangential assertion?

>
>> The problem being that it IS a formal process to become an ARB
>> extension.
>
> True, but not particularly important. ALL extensions come from the
> same wellsprings of inspiration; some are adopted by multiple
> vendors, some are approved by the ARB as either EXT or ARB. The
> extension mechanism hasn't changed.

Either you're now talking about the programmatic implementation of
extensions (which has evolved) or you're talking about the process of
extensions moving from vendor extensions to ARB extensions which is an
example of the extension registry evolving.

WTH

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode