“It is a non-standard technology”
From the Khronos website: “WebGL is a cross-platform, royalty-free web standard”
“that can cause them to physically fail”
AFAIK, no hardware can do this, bios (or something else) knocks them down down before overheating and sustaining damage.
“developers should push non-IE browser makers to get their graphical
rendering ON PAR with IE9/10 so that W3C standard HTML5/CSS3 can be used
for content”
I don’t see that much of a difference between IE10 and the Firefox/Chrome duo at HWA, if that’s what you meant by graphical rendering. True, IE might be the best, but it’s not that far ahead, nothing on the x10-1000 scale. IE has the smallest scores when it comes to HTML5 and CSS3 support. Also, supporting WebGL does not mean the browser developers do not work on other things too. You know, something called work sharing.
“Bing IETestDrive, and notice that standard HTML5/CSS3 sample sites that
are graphically heavy run anywhere from 10 to even 1000 times faster in
IE, making WebGL irrelevant.”
Up till now, every IE testpage used some kind of trick to bend the results, the last one was the with Penguins, I think. This shows an example, how much you can trust these results. Also, I doubt you have tried BananaBread or saw the video Epic and Mozilla released. WebGL isn’t that weak.
“If Microsoft came out with WebDirectX [...]” …the world would complain about not being supported outside of Windows and not being open-source. Not being a standard would be the smallest problem among the three IMO.
I hope some else will cover up the parts I missed, like what is sent to the GPU.
Edit: some more stuff here.