- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 06:57:08 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, Philip J?genstedt wrote: > > > > It's not so much that I disagree so much as that there is no point > > fixing this now, since whatever new API we introduce today will just > > end up broken in the exact some way as the existing API. > > The fix is not to introduce a new API that can handle high-DPI > ImageData, but rather to make the spec reflect the reality that high-DPI > ImageData implementations won't be possible with this version of the > API. That would include, among other things, specifying that > getImageData(0, 0, w, h) returns a wxh ImageData object, removing > createImageData(ImageData) and making createImageData(w, h) take > unsigned long and return a wxh ImageData object. In other words, > aligning with what implementations already do (and will continue to do > for compatibility reasons). This is what we would do once we are in a position to introduce a new API to do the high-dpi thing (i.e. once browsers are commonly deployed on high-DPI displays), yes. I'm saying there's not much point changing it now. Who knows, maybe some miracle will happen and by the time it comes to provide the new API, we will find we can in fact use this API after all. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 13 September 2009 23:57:08 UTC