W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > February 2008

[whatwg] More random comments on the putImageData definition

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:26:09 +1300
Message-ID: <11e306600802101426y4ab18686y5496cba066046cd0@mail.gmail.com>
On Feb 10, 2008 10:07 PM, Oliver Hunt <oliver at apple.com> wrote:

> That said, basically what you're saying is that canvas should not support
> hidpi.  At all. There is no need to request the dpi of a canvas, but (and
> here's the critical bit) you can't have get/putImageData work at a different
> resolution from the backing buffer.
>

Why not?

Their sole purpose is to be a 1:1 mapping to the canvas backing store, so
> saying get/putImageData should work in canvas pixels and not device pixels
> seems to defy the whole reason for this API existing.
>

It seems to me the API would still be useful even if it downsampled the
backing store.

I guess we'll just cross our fingers and hope Web developers get it right.
We could implement a higher-resolution canvas backing store for Firefox, but
that wouldn't really help since most developers won't test with a setup that
would trigger it.

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20080211/7eea4ee6/attachment.htm>
Received on Sunday, 10 February 2008 14:26:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:39 UTC