- From: Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 10:18:52 +0200
The image rendering quality property is indeed unable to hit the tradeoff between beauty of presentation and rendering speed. However, it is perfectly all right to say 'this content is some fancy GUI can be rendered downscaled without degrading the content - but that content contains engineering drawings that must be rendered as accurately as can be.' This is semantic information the browser has no way of inferring. Cheers, Chris -----Original Message----- From: whatwg-bounces@lists.whatwg.org [mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Oliver Hunt Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 2:18 AM To: Mark Finkle Cc: Vladimir Vukicevic; Robert O'Callahan; WHATWG; David Hyatt; Jerason Banes; Ian Hickson; Robert O'Callahan Subject: Re: [whatwg] [canvas] imageRenderingQuality property > > > So now we need to define levels of graphic burden? and at what level > of burden does the quality suffer? Seems just as hard to define. > Having the author explicit say "this has to be as high quality as > possible" or "less can be low quality" seems better and we have > examples of other specs offering the same kind of control. > No. The whole point is that the UA is in the best position to identify what the tradeoffs are, not the author -- if you want a flag to specify the quality to be used then that would require you to determine what the tradeoffs were yourself, with no substantial knowledge of what combination any given user was actually using. You need to realise that different UAs and different platforms have substantially different performance characteristics.
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2008 01:18:52 UTC