- From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 14:17:35 -0500
- To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Noel Gordon <noel.gordon@gmail.com>
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cabanier@gmail.com');>> wrote: > If performance is good, why would this not be acceptable? > I don't know why we'd provide an API to compress PNGs, then tell people to use a script reimplementation if they want to set a common option. As far as performance, I'm not sure about PNG, but there's no way that a JS compressor would compete with native for JPEG. Assembly (MMX, SSE) optimization gives a significant performance improvement over C, so I doubt JS will ever be in the running. ( http://www.libjpeg-turbo.org/About/Performance) > 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? > No more than any other new feature. I don't know if feature testing for dictionary arguments has been solved yet (it's come up before), but if not that's something that needs to be figured out in general. -- Glenn Maynard -- Glenn Maynard
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2014 19:18:05 UTC