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

[whatwg] More random comments on the putImageData definition

From: Oliver Hunt <oliver@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:56:28 -0800
Message-ID: <5F36B85E-0EEB-4EAC-8489-DA5884F48FE5@apple.com>


On Feb 11, 2008, at 12:33 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
...
>
> I was assuming no-one supported getImageData/putImageData during  
> those 5 years. Then there would be no content using it that would be  
> broken.

Alas there are already sites depending on it, so we're doomed

On Feb 11, 2008, at 12:37 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:

> On Feb 11, 2008 2:57 PM, Oliver Hunt <oliver at apple.com> wrote:
>
....
>
> Not really -- a developer would need to do work to handle browsers  
> that did not support the newer hidpi apis. The alternative (a css  
> property or whatever) would allow a developer to use a single API,  
> but tell the browser that they were aware that there may not be a  
> 1:1 ratio between the requested region and the amount of data  
> returned -- effectively it would be a flag to say "hey i actually do  
> know the spec, and am not blindly expecting this to work on everyone  
> else's computer just because it works on mine"
>
> OK, but I wouldn't use a property, I'd use a content attribute,  
> because you want to be able to work with <canvas> elements that  
> aren't in a document and thus don't really have style.
Ah good point, i had not considered that.  I agree, an attribute would  
probably be better (although the concept itself is still icky)

> Rob

--Oliver
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20080211/84f2370e/attachment.htm>
Received on Monday, 11 February 2008 00:56:28 UTC

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