<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - EGL client behaviour too undefined" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98731#c4">Comment # 4</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - EGL client behaviour too undefined" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98731">bug 98731</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:jadahl@gmail.com" title="Jonas Ådahl <jadahl@gmail.com>"> Jonas Ådahl</a> <pre>(In reply to Pekka Paalanen from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=98731#c3">comment #3</a>) > I think we already have all the answers, we really just need to agree on the > place to document it all. > > wayland-egl-core.h, living in Wayland repository, would be a very convenient > place at least for starters. We could polish the EGL spec there in the > public without the overhead of going through e.g. Khronos. Once it's good, > we could see if we need to get it stamped by Khronos in e.g. > EGL_KHR_platform_wayland. Sounds good to me. > > Should we also have EGL implementors' notes? In the same place or a > different place? E.g. explaining how you define your own private Wayland > protocol extensions. Maybe that should be a chapter in the Wayland docbook > instead? Sounds like the docbook makes more sense for that, and just leave wayland-egl.h (and later EGL_KHR_platform_wayland) for specifying expected behaviour. > > Or put everything in the docbook? The docbook IMHO is more inaccessible (harder to find, and doesn't contain any API specification so far), so I'd put my vote on wayland-egl.h for now.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>