W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2014

Re: [whatwg] Proposal: toDataURL “image/png” compression control

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 13:35:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDB3NvfTkBEjQRWzVBsA3MuA9iRWYubuhHsWWbxfC2Ti9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Noel Gordon <noel.gordon@gmail.com>
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If performance is good, why would this not be acceptable?
>>>
>>
>>  I don't know why we'd provide an API to compress PNGs, then tell people
>> to use a script reimplementation if they want to set a common option.
>>
>> As far as performance, I'm not sure about PNG, but there's no way that a
>> JS compressor would compete with native for JPEG.  Assembly (MMX, SSE)
>> optimization gives a significant performance improvement over C, so I doubt
>> JS will ever be in the running.  (
>> http://www.libjpeg-turbo.org/About/Performance)
>>
>
> MMX, SSE is being addressed using asm.js.
> We're also just dealing with screenshots here. I doubt people are going to
> do toDataURL at 60fps.
>

Here's a link to an experiment:
http://multimedia.cx/eggs/playing-with-emscripten-and-asm-js/



>  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?
>>>
>>
>> No more than any other new feature.  I don't know if feature testing for
>> dictionary arguments has been solved yet (it's come up before), but if not
>> that's something that needs to be figured out in general.
>>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2014 20:35:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:28 UTC