- From: Mathieu HENRI <p01@opera.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 17:24:45 +0200
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Sat, 12 May 2007 17:54:25 +0200, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> > wrote: >> These features are nice but I don't think authors will understand that >> imagedata.height != canvas.height (likewise for width). Authors will >> just make something that works in their browser and then assume it >> will work everywhere else. Which would horribly break. Even the more >> experienced <canvas> developers playing with these features have >> already made these mistakes. >> >> I'm not quite sure what a good solution to this problem would be. > > The best way forward would probably be to get rid of "<canvas> device > pixels" and just make such a pixel map a <canvas> pixel. This means that > getImageData() and putImageData() work similarly to toDataURL() and > drawImage(). This will save JS developers some brain twisting sessions. > If people really want high resolution <canvas> they could > just make it high resolution and scale it down for display using CSS. > Incidentally such an approach might get us rid of all the floats > currently in the API... -- Mathieu 'p01' HENRI JavaScript developer, Opera Software ASA
Received on Sunday, 13 May 2007 08:24:45 UTC