- From: Justin Novosad <junov@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 14:25:48 -0400
- To: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Nils Dagsson Moskopp <nils@dieweltistgarnichtso.net>
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> > wrote: > >> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Justin Novosad <junov@google.com> wrote: >> > The "just do it in script" argument saddens me quite a bit. :-( >> >> Agreed, however for this particular case, I'm not sure it makes much >> sense to further enshrine a synchronous API for serializing an image. >> > > I think this proposal falls short of enshrining. The cost of adding this feature is minuscule. > True, you'd never want to use toDataURL with a compression operation that > takes many seconds ((or even tenths of a second) to complete, and data URLs > don't make sense for large images in the first place. It makes sense for > toBlob(), though, and having the arguments to toBlob and toDataURL be > different seems like gratuitous inconsistency. > Yes, toBlob is async, but it can still be polyfilled. > -- > Glenn Maynard > >
Received on Friday, 30 May 2014 18:26:13 UTC