W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2013

Re: [whatwg] Canvas in workers

From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:03:05 -0500
Message-ID: <CABirCh-W_dCj=26=TEB3-W9JBbnpKLSqpVDSvQEaf6erQ3jMeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com>, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote:

> Glenn, taking a step back for a bit, is there anything in
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Roc/WorkerCanvasProposal that you would
> actually object to? IOW, is there anything there that you would think is
> completely superfluous to the platform if all your proposals were to be
> adopted as well?

I have no objection to the overall change from CanvasProxy to WorkerCanvas,
eg. the stuff in Kyle's original mail to the thread.  (Being able to settle
on that is one of the reasons I've tried to detach discussion for the other
use cases.)

I'd only recommend leaving out transferToImageBitmap, srcObject and
ImageBitmap.close() parts.  I do think that would be redundant with with
"present" proposal.  They can always be added later, and leaving them out
keeps the WorkerCanvas proposal itself focused.

Glenn Maynard
Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 15:03:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:12 UTC