W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2014

Re: [whatwg] Proposal: toDataURL “image/png” compression control

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 08:29:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDC6Z5-QaJndBeU44_rj=ZS=5d5kHvhSuRkQtj1-RqaUqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Noel Gordon <noel.gordon@gmail.com>
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:

> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This has been requested before. ie
>>
> http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/help-whatwg.org/2013-May/001209.html
>> The conclusion was that this can be accomplished using JavaScript. There
>> are JS libraries that can compress images and performance is very good
>> these days.
>>
>
> This is a nonsensical conclusion.  People shouldn't have to pull in a PNG
> compressor and deflate code when a PNG compression API already exists on
> the platform.  This is an argument against adding toDataURL at all, which
> is a decision that's already been made.
>

If performance is good, why would this not be acceptable?
It seems that this would be a fragmented solution as file formats and
features would be added at different stages to browser engines. Would there
be a way to feature test that the optional arguments are supported?
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2014 15:29:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:20 UTC