WGPUTextureDataLayout name doesn't match WebIDL GPUImageDataLayout

[kainino0x]

WGPUTextureDataLayout is called GPUImageDataLayout upstream (EDIT: and we have WGPUImageCopyBuffer and WGPUImageCopyTexture already in C). Probably they should match.

Note, we don't use the "image" language anywhere in the stable JS API though - only in dictionary names - so the upstream WebIDL can still be changed (I think). "Image" is kind of a confusing word; the naming deserves some more attention before it becomes part of a stable API.

[Kangz]

+1 for calling it WGPUImageDataLayout. The term image in the JS spec seems to refer to how pixels are laid out in linear memory for a single miplevel/aspect while the term texture is for the full breadth of non-linear memory things.

[kainino0x]

Yes, we chose that naming in the JS spec intentionally to be different from "Texture" to refer to this concept. But I am still interested to see if we could come up with a clearer name than "Image", because that has overlap with Vulkan, new Image(), etc.

Apr 11 meeting:

• (discussion)
• CF: Two things
  • native should match the JS spec’s naming
  • we should poke the JS spec to reconsider this naming
• Rename to match JS spec (tentatively WGPUImageDataLayout but also see what editors say on Monday)

[kainino0x]

gpuweb/gpuweb#4573