W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2011

Re: [css3-images] image-rendering property for contrast-preserving image upscaling

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 09:23:22 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTikusa-v8fr9wpNWK7ZX+e0Uy_QvL7gMq_9djfNh@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: Lech <unattended@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> I don't believe there's a good reason to specify an explicit algorithm.
>> When you know precisely what algorithm you want, you can implement that
>> yourself easily in canvas.  When you don't care all that much (which
>> should be the common case), you can just declare your intent and let the
>> browser do what it wants to make everything look as good as possible.
>
> If the answer for your average web author is 'code your image scaling
> algorithm yourself' then I would most definitely argue there is a good
> reason for this ! That is not something the kind of JS code browsers
> should spend cycles running on a routine basis.

The average web author isn't going to care, imo.  The
'optimize-contrast' value gives sufficient intent to cover the one
case in which they would (scaling up pixel-art images, as opposed to
photos).

By the time you're caring about the precise scaling algorithm, you're
(a) advanced enough that you know how to do it yourself, and (b) very
likely coding an app already, so running the scaling yourself isn't a
burden.


> (The implied claim that this can 'easily' be done also begs the question:
> for whom ? And even then, so what ? It's easy to make progress bars and
> sliders but those are built in HTML5)
>
> So the question imo is: why would this be something authors would want
> to control on a routine basis ?

Indeed.  I don't think it is, thus my design.  ^_^

~TJ
Received on Monday, 7 February 2011 17:24:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:37 GMT