W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > February 2016

Re: [whatwg] Reviving ImageBitmap options: Intend to spec and implement

From: Ashley Gullen <ashley@scirra.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:38:01 +0000
Message-ID: <CAABs73jhMWMJeH7-0boXvxhadq+kMabX6KQby7F46AqMFWBFFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg Tavares <gman@chromium.org>
Cc: "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>
ImageBitmap is not useful for getting the data from: it still requires
synchronous use of a canvas to turn in to an ImageData. I would encourage
browser vendors to look at my spec proposal to avoid this:
http://wicg.github.io/img-conversion/

On 10 February 2016 at 18:29, Gregg Tavares <gman@chromium.org> wrote:

> Is there a reason in the proposal many of the options default to
> "implementation specific behavior"?
>
> If the point of ImageBitmap is to get the data (use Image if you don't
> care), then it seems like having any "implementation defined" options,
> especially as the default, is just asking for lurking bugs in websites
>
Received on Wednesday, 10 February 2016 19:38:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 February 2016 19:38:30 UTC