- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:22:33 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12520 Summary: Why the word dirty for the arguments to putImageData? Normally, dirty refers to something that has changed, and I think that connotation infers that the rectangle may not be copied if it hasn't changed. However, that is not the case, as far as I can tell Product: HTML WG Version: unspecified Platform: Other URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#pix el-manipulation OS/Version: other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: HTML Canvas 2D Context (editor: Ian Hickson) AssignedTo: ian@hixie.ch ReportedBy: contributor@whatwg.org QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org CC: mike@w3.org, public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org, public-html@w3.org Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/the-canvas-element.html Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete.html#pixel-manipulation Comment: Why the word dirty for the arguments to putImageData? Normally, dirty refers to something that has changed, and I think that connotation infers that the rectangle may not be copied if it hasn't changed. However, that is not the case, as far as I can tell the rectangle is simply the source rectangle inside the image. If that's the case, why not just name the variables sx, sy, sw, and sh, which both avoids the confusing dirty connotation, and is consistent with the other methods in CanvasRenderingContext2D? Posted from: 184.96.136.128 by sabreware@gmail.com User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_4) AppleWebKit/534.29 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/12.0.733.0 Safari/534.29 -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 18 April 2011 15:22:34 UTC