- From: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:50:41 +0100
- To: Kris Krueger <krisk@microsoft.com>
- CC: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, "'public-html-testsuite@w3.org'" <public-html-testsuite@w3.org>
Kris Krueger wrote: > For #1 - yes lossy > > A better test would not have a 'tolerance' for passing and failing. > I see Firefox, Safari and IE9 all fail, though they get fail because the tolerance is too high. Firefox apparently fails on toDataURL.jpeg.quality.basic because of https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=564388 (the quality parameter isn't supported and it conflicts with a proprietary extension to toDataURL). Chromium on Linux passes the test for me. Haven't tested Safari. IE9 apparently returns (0,11,255,255) instead of (0,0,255,255), so increasing the tolerance to e.g. 16 or 32 would let it pass the test. (The purpose of the pixel value tests was just to verify that the JPEG encoder was doing something vaguely sane, and not returning red or black or whatever, so the tolerances can be high.) -- Philip Taylor pjt47@cam.ac.uk
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2010 14:51:17 UTC