- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:22:32 +0000
- To: public-html@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 on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 18 April 2011 15:22:34 UTC