- From: Brendan Long <self@brendanlong.com>
- Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 12:30:13 -0600
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- CC: "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>
Received on Sunday, 8 September 2013 18:30:17 UTC
On 09/07/2013 05:11 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Brendan Long <self@brendanlong.com> wrote: >> Would >> you create an image format where the only way to access pixel data is a >> giant if/else block to figure out what kind of image it is? > Sure. That's what you do with image formats that the browser doesn't > support and that you have to pull in via XHR. But for image formats the browser /does/ understand, you would expect it to present a consistent interface for the parts that are consistent (all images should have height, width and pixel data). >> I find it hard to believe that there's any cue format >> that can't be represented in HTML, and I think to make things reasonable for >> JS developers, we should force that format to always be available (although, >> for efficiency, an implementation could choose to create it lazily of >> course). > Binary cue formats don't have a HTML representation, e.g. DVD subtitles. <img src="data:image/bmp;base64,......" /> would work. It's not as nice as getting text, but it's about as good as you can do for image-base subtitles.
Received on Sunday, 8 September 2013 18:30:17 UTC