- From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:00:37 -0700
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: "Joe D'Andrea" <jdandrea@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
Agreed. And in practice we've already seen that interoperability is achievable without having down-to-the-pixel identical renderings in each browser. dave On Apr 17, 2007, at 1:57 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > On Apr 16, 2007, at 22:15, Joe D'Andrea wrote: > >> My takeaway thus far: >> >> <canvas> should not define pixel-perfect rendering, nor does it. > > <canvas> is really about providing a JavaScript API for the PDF 1.4 > imaging model in a way that maps sanely to the kind of C libraries— > Quartz 2D in particular—that would be suitable for implementing the > painting part of a PDF 1.4 viewer. I'd expect the spec to give room > for using such libraries without making onerous requirements about > the details of Bézier tesselation or the details of anti-aliasing. > For example, it should be permissible to use Quartz 2D, Cairo or > WPF as the rendering library with whatever anti-aliasing algorithms > that they provide. > > Thus, for a given CSS pixels to device pixels ratio, > implementations should (subject minor to Bézier tesselation > rounding errors) have an agreement about which shapes participate > in which pixels, but when a pixel is not fully filled by a given > shape, the exact degree of anti-aliasing shading should be allowed > to fudge in an implementation-specific way. > > -- > Henri Sivonen > hsivonen@iki.fi > http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ > > >
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 21:00:53 UTC