LINUXGAMES

OpenGL Specs: Call for ISVs

March 26th, 2003 by Alkini

The Khronos group is looking forIndependent Software Vendors (ISVs) to further review the OpenGL ES and OpenML SDK specifications (previous news):

Developers are invited to register for consideration forparticipation in future meetings of the OpenGL ES and OpenML “ISV Review Teams”

OpenGL ES is a subset of OpenGL targeted at mobile devices such as cell phones (Ericsson, Nokia, Motorola are involved indefining the spec). At GDC 2003 select ISVs were given a chance to preview the current draft of the OpenGL ES specification.The feedback was invaluable and Khronos now invites developers with significant experienceto register for consideration for participation in future meetings ofthe âISV Review Teamâ — for either the OpenGL ES specification, orthe OpenML 1.0 SDK.

4 Responses to “OpenGL Specs: Call for ISVs”

  1. Anonymous Says:

    I will never use it unless they use OpenAL for sound.

  2. Anonymous Says:

    It would be great if their could come a general OpenML port for Linux (same as Mesa is for GL). OpenML can be a very good replacement for SDL, since it will be the same on all supported OSes. (it won’t be a wrapper like SDL is ..)

  3. Anonymous Says:

    OpenML is probably a nice API, but is it too late I wonder? Sure it could become popular in *nix but so what? MS has the bulk of the PC market and of cource the game market. Why did it take MS to create a “standarized” API in order for these other companies to make a DirectX knock-off. Sure it COULD facilitate some game ports from Windows, I doubt it will help much. Just look at OpenGL and how popular it is with the game industry.

  4. Catonga Says:

    What are the pros of OpenML compared to SDL?

    One mentioned OpenML won’t be a wrapper, but IMHO
    it should be possible if necessary to reimplement SDL on every plattform in such a way that it is not a wrapper.
    For example it shouldn’t be a technical problem to implement SDL in such way on windows that it doesn’t need DirectX. The only problem is time and maybe the lack of willing developers to do this reimplementation work.

    Does anyone know what we can expect from SDL 2.0?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.