[whatwg] getImageData/putImageData comments

Robert O'Callahan robert at ocallahan.org
Fri Jun 12 23:52:31 PDT 2009

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:

> The long and short of this is that if we solve this problem today, the
> solution will be abused as much as the current API, and we'll have to
> introduce yet another solution when high-res backing stores are common. So
> instead I'm hoping that (a) authors won't screw this up, and (b) high-res
> backing stores will be implemented sooner rather than later. If we fail
> with (a), which is more likely if (b) is delayed, then we'll just
> introduce a higher-res API later, and designate this one a lost cause.

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.

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.

"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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090613/2dad6b23/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the whatwg mailing list