W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > January 2013

Re: [whatwg] proposal: Add support for masking to canvas

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:37:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDBXWjgxLXgvYf0FH6yL0DAOwAV5vr=J+rVr-4=mMeZdNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>, "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>
Thanks!
I like that better too.

So the API could be as follows:

enum CanvasMaskType { luminosity, alpha};
dictionary maskOptions {

CanvasImageSource image;
unrestricted double? sx;
unrestricted double? sy;
unrestricted double? sw;
unrestricted double? sh;
unrestricted double dx;
unrestricted double dy;
unrestricted double? dw;
unrestricted double? dh;
CanvasMaskType? maskType = "luminosity";
boolean? invert = false;
boolean? clipToMask = true;

}

void maskImage(maskOptions options);
void resetMask();

If not specified, the dw and dh arguments must default to the values of sw
and sh, interpreted such that one CSS pixel in the image is treated as one
unit in thescratch bitmap's coordinate space. If the sx, sy, sw, and sh
arguments are omitted, they must default to 0, 0, the image's intrinsic
width in image pixels, and the image's intrinsic height in image pixels,
respectively.

Rik

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Do you believe it's OK to have 12 arguments or would a dictionary be
> better?
>
> No, it's not okay.  ^_^  Particularly when some of the parameters are
> boolean - boolean positional arguments are the devil.  Go with a dict.
>
> ~TJ
>
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 04:37:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:12 GMT