- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 14:21:56 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Mar 2013, Kenneth Russell wrote: > > > > It would be useful to be able to create an ImageData [1] object with > > preexisting data. The main use case is to display arbitrary data in the > > 2D canvas context with no data copies. > > Doesn't ImageBitmap support this already? I'm not sure I understand the > use case here. Where are you getting the image data from, that it's > already in raw RGBA form rather than compressed e.g. as a PNG? (Presumably > this isn't coming over the network, since I would imagine the time to > compress and decompress an image is far smaller than the time to send > uncompressed data. But maybe I'm wrong about that.) > >From re-reading the thread, it seems that this data comes from the server (or a web worker?) as uncompressed data. The http protocol likely did compression on the packets so the size difference is probably not that great. I think the use-case is to avoid having to copy over the data pixel by pixel from the arraybuffer. > > > On Mon, 11 Mar 2013, Justin Novosad wrote: > > > > The use cases I see for this new interface is for relaying image data, > > that is *not* generated in JS. For example, suppose a chunk of image > > data is generated on the server side and sent to the client via > > WebSocket. > > Wouldn't you send that as a PNG and then just use ImageBitmap? > > > [snip the rest of this thread, which seemed to mainly discuss > implementation details -- without knowing what the use case is, it's > impossible to evaluate that level of detail] > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' >
Received on Friday, 9 August 2013 21:22:21 UTC