- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 00:13:04 -0700
On May 31, 2009, at 9:08 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > > Here are a couple of relevant threads: > http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-May/011284.html > http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-February/013906.html > Then there was a discussion on #whatwg more recently. > http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090326#l-263 > > So far it seems the data supports the hypothesis that authors expect > getImageData to return 1 image pixel per CSS pixel and their scripts > break when that's not true. That won't change until authors all have > high-dpi screens. I'm not surprised. On the other hand, if we use CSS pixels, it won't be possible for authors to get it right, even if they do have high-dpi screens. It might be wise to have separate APIs (or a distinguishing parameter) to indicate whether you want scaled or true resolution. That way, unaware code gets a resolution loss, but aware code can do the right thing. I guess you suggested something like that in the IRC conversation you cited. Regards, Maciej -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090601/839c0a9f/attachment.htm>
Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 00:13:04 UTC