CW: not helpful for developers.
KN: rare enough case that I don't care about this for V1, but wanted it documented.
KG: +1
MM: what's the reason to not have the default?
KN: in the stencil only case or generally?
MM: stencil.
KN: makes an optional boolean. tri-state thing, annoying for implementations. Would rather deal with this later.
MM: think optional seems straightforward. Benefits seem to outweigh the costs.
KG: I think if you want a proposal, you should make one. I think otherwise we’re fine for V1.
KN: part of complexity - two possibilities. It's either regular validation, or make it a JS exception so impls don't need to wire the tri-state through.
CW:
KG: if no proposal, can leave this incomplete for v1
KR: If these are required in the WebIDL and you didn’t provide them, that would be a JS exception. So I think the closer we can get to that behavior the better.
KN: Different from how we do most validation.
CW: would like to propose we fix this in Milestone 2.
KG: agreed, would like to not do anything right now.
MM: I'm willing to make a concrete proposal.
KG: take an AI. 🙂

depthWriteEnabled and depthCompare are required even for stencil-only formats #3905

Description