- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 08:29:03 -0700
- To: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Noel Gordon <noel.gordon@gmail.com>
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > >> This has been requested before. ie >> > http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/help-whatwg.org/2013-May/001209.html >> The conclusion was that this can be accomplished using JavaScript. There >> are JS libraries that can compress images and performance is very good >> these days. >> > > This is a nonsensical conclusion. People shouldn't have to pull in a PNG > compressor and deflate code when a PNG compression API already exists on > the platform. This is an argument against adding toDataURL at all, which > is a decision that's already been made. > If performance is good, why would this not be acceptable? It seems that this would be a fragmented solution as file formats and features would be added at different stages to browser engines. Would there be a way to feature test that the optional arguments are supported?
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2014 15:29:27 UTC