On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Ian Hickson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ian@hixie.ch">ian@hixie.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
The long and short of this is that if we solve this problem today, the<br>
solution will be abused as much as the current API, and we'll have to<br>
introduce yet another solution when high-res backing stores are common. So<br>
instead I'm hoping that (a) authors won't screw this up, and (b) high-res<br>
backing stores will be implemented sooner rather than later. If we fail<br>
with (a), which is more likely if (b) is delayed, then we'll just<br>
introduce a higher-res API later, and designate this one a lost cause.<br></blockquote><div> </div></div>Whether high-resolution backing stores are implemented or not is irrelevant as long as most authors are testing their scripts on systems configured with a 1:1 ratio of CSS pixels to device pixels. So in practice you're also relying on (c) rapid deployment of high-dpi screens to canvas-using Web developers. That's why I think you hope in vain.<br>
<br>Altering the current API so that it always uses one image-data pixel per CSS pixel would not make it useless. Everything people are currently using it for will continue to work just fine and the visual results will be just as good as what people are currently seeing. It's just that we'll need a new API in the future to take maximum advantage of hardware.<br>
<br>Rob<br>-- <br>"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]<br>