readme whoops

README.md

@@ -29,6 +29,6 @@ Though, outside of testing purposes, I don't know why you'd want to do this.
 
 ## A note on performance
 
-My first proof of concept (which was just a bunch of hacked-together code which did NOT use this library; it's available at http://github.com/sinisterchipmunk/webgl-compat/poc/poc.htm) showed that Internet Explorer can maintain 42 frames per second (on my box) rendering 25 rotating triangles to the canvas. I took this to mean that Canvas2D is fast enough under Internet Explorer to at least have a *chance* of making this library viable (or else I wouldn't have started writing it to begin with). Once more advanced features like depth testing and the like are implemented, framerate will likely drop precipitously; however, the drops that I'm expecting would likely correlate directly to the number of pixels being processed and the general speed of the JavaScript interpreter and the machine itself. I'm confident that framerates can be kept to acceptable levels.
+My first proof of concept (which was just a bunch of hacked-together code which did NOT use this library; it's available at http://github.com/sinisterchipmunk/webgl-compat/tree/master/poc/poc.htm) showed that Internet Explorer can maintain 42 frames per second (on my box) rendering 25 rotating triangles to the canvas. I took this to mean that Canvas2D is fast enough under Internet Explorer to at least have a *chance* of making this library viable (or else I wouldn't have started writing it to begin with). Once more advanced features like depth testing and the like are implemented, framerate will likely drop precipitously; however, the drops that I'm expecting would likely correlate directly to the number of pixels being processed and the general speed of the JavaScript interpreter and the machine itself. I'm confident that framerates can be kept to acceptable levels.
 
 This library is being developed exclusively for compatibility with Internet Explorer; it should _work_ on other browsers, but performance could be impacted considerably. For instance, the proof of concept mentioned in the above paragraph, which maintained a steady 42 frames per second on IE, averaged only 13-15 frames per second on Chrome. On the other hand, Chrome supports WebGL natively, so I consider this a non-issue.