- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:12:13 -0800
- To: Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>
- Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com> wrote: > But in practice, Chromium at least is making visible > performance-over-quality tradeoffs, displaying banding in smooth gradients > and jagged pixelation on sharp transitions (in larger blocks than the actual > screen resolution). Banding can also appear in subtle gradients in any > rendering tool that doesn't do explicit dithering, which can be an issue > with high-quality printing and SVG. You appear to be assuming that Blink has a choice in how to render gradients, and they're purposefully choosing the option that is fast-but-ugly. I don't know our details, but I suspect we're actually in the same boat as Safari, and our underlying graphics library does not offer any choices in gradient rendering - it just does so, in some particular way. As Rik says, we appear to have fixed that to be prettier. This is why we're pushing back against adding a toggle. There doesn't appear to *be* an underlying toggle in implementations, so there's nothing that a CSS-level toggle could *do*. If gradients are ugly, we can just fix them. After we've fixed as best as we can, we can examine whether a toggle is still desirable. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2016 21:13:03 UTC