Here’s something interesting - I searched the recent ARB meeting notes. The last major mention of OpenGL was Sept 2000. This guy from MS seems to be stalling. I wonder what ever came of this discussion…
WGL / opengl32.dll Status
Dave Aronson, MS - working internally and externally to push OpenGL forward; no major announcements since SIGGRAPH timeframe.
Dale - Microsoft’s future doesn’t seem to be OpenGL. IHVs have been having informal discussions about taking over, promoting, and adding OpenGL features on Windows (NT), integrating OpenML features, etc. Is there interest in specifying and developing an open implementation of this? ICD-centric; possibly NT-centric.
3Dlabs would like to see this, and is willing to do some of the work.
Bimal - Intel is interested in participating in a working group. Some WGL features leave a lot to be desired, e.g. error handling mechanism.
Jon - SGI is willing to open source opengl32.dll infrastructure, if Microsoft allows it. IP issues involved.
ChrisH - Different levels of IP. Probably no patents involved.
Dale - Mainly interested in what the application sees, and a specification of how that works. Easier on Win2K - Win98 does lots of this work inside opengl32.dll rather than the ICD.
George - Will Microsoft say just what IP they’re concerned about?
DaveA - Will research it and report back.
Dale - Thinks NT has actually hurt OpenGL by not evolving its support.
ChrisH - advocates taking control of the entire mechanism, to not rely on Redmond. Concerned about how much systems work is involved.
Michael - Ideally, ICD loader would come from Microsoft, if they can keep it up to date. Code effort required isn’t significant.
Jon - SGI has already done this work; the issue seems to be Microsoft finding engineering resources to test / package / ship it.
DaveA - Trying to find resources to get this done.
Kurt - it’s clear Microsoft won’t do this. If people want it, they need to just go do it.
ChrisH - volunteers to drive the spec, with Bimal, Michael, and Dale. Will create a working group through the regular ARB process.
Jon - concerned about compatibility issues with existing build/runtime environment.
Dale - don’t want to get into namespace wars with Microsoft. Will write up a proposal for ARB vote.
ChrisH - wants to make sure this includes Win9x too.
Dale - impromptu meeting at 5 PM.
[This message has been edited by jmathies (edited 02-21-2002).]