[fzltrp]

In my humble opinion, they should write formal specifications which are not just targetting a C API, but may degrade consistently to a C API. With a more formal description of each function call, including predicates for parameters, and possibly the context itself, they make things way easier for user land, where these could be mechanically translated into API bindings, and thus checked automatically. If all these checks are made on the user side, then they may add a simple toggle in the API to remove the checks on the driver side. Most users aren't using the C API directly anyway, and people writing bindings would welcome specs which could be mechanically translated into their favorite language bindings. The problem might remain for WebGL though.

[flohofwoe]

There's actually an XML spec, don't know whether this is enough to automatically generate language bindings from it though: https://cvs.khronos.org/svn/repos/ogl/trunk/doc/registry/pub...

[exDM69]

> don't know whether this is enough to automatically generate language bindings from it though

Yes it is and most language bindings are generated using them. This also includes "OpenGL extension loaders" which are required in C apps too.

[fzltrp]

I have to admit that, while I knew these documents existed, I was not aware they included as much information as they do: I was under the impression that it was merely an xml version of the original C headers to facilitate their parsing. Having a second look, it seems that it also covers information like array expected size and valid enum subsets for parameters, which is very valuable data for all players using the API (even driver implementors could use it to generate basic conformance tests).