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

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

From: Justin Novosad <junov@google.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 14:25:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CABpaAqT3d_GzqXCmDM3s40NjePD+7F2Hx=Pos5YCovZdwgVvzQ@mail.gmail.com>
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

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