On 8 March 2010 13:16, Nils Dagsson Moskopp
wrote:
> Tim Hutt schrieb am Mon, 8 Mar 2010 12:48:30 +:
>
>> 2010/3/8 Ashley Sheridan
>> > Also, I've never seen anything built in Flash that started up in
>> > full-screen mode automatically. I had to trigger
2010/3/8 Ashley Sheridan
> Also, I've never seen anything built in Flash that started up in full-screen
> mode automatically. I had to trigger it explicitly every time by an action
> from me.
That was his point - despite the fact that it *can* be done in flash,
it isn't. Hence the argument in t
gzip and zip both use the same algorithm which is called DEFLATE. For a
single file they will give exactly the same results. tar.gz has a slight
advantage for multiple files because it treats them as one big file. That's
called 'solid compression'. However it does mean that in order to do
anything
On 23 February 2010 18:12, Jose Fandos wrote:
>> 2) A multipart response with the files as parts, each part having
>> "Content-Disposition: attachment".
>
> as far as I know, and I could be wrong, this would suffer from what I
> described in a), i.e. there would be a dialog propping up to acce
On 17 February 2010 03:05, Conrad Parker wrote:
>> My point exactly. There is no single 'quality' metric, so the best we
>> can do is give the user agent the relevant information and let it
>> decide.
>
> Perhaps, but why are you suggesting that HTML is the correct place to
> offer that informatio
On 16 February 2010 16:08, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Tim Hutt wrote:
>> It's up the UA.
>
> Imagine that you are a user-agent. Place these streams in order of "quality":
>
> 1. 854x480 4:2:0 @ 1mbit/sec. average rate.
>
On 16 February 2010 15:17, Eric Carlson wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Tim Hutt wrote:
>> Anyway, with respect to the actual discussion. My vote is to add two
>> optional tags to
>
> I assume you mean to add these to the element rather than ?
Yep.
>> :
On 16 February 2010 04:44, Hugh Guiney wrote:
> While it is true that the amount of information in the SOURCE image
> does not change, the amount of information in the RESULT image *does*,
> simply by nature of the fact that it is no longer the same image.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Come on,
On 15 February 2010 23:07, Hugh Guiney wrote:
> But even if we had a standard, YouTube further dilutes the meaning of
> these abbreviations since they now also have a toggle button (depicted
> as two arrows at a right angle) that expands or contracts the player
> but leaves the quality setting the
On 4 February 2010 20:49, Sebastian Hennebrueder wrote:
> What is the idea about?
I think "Web Storage" does what you want and is already implemented
(apparently even in IE). The description from the spec:
"This specification introduces two related mechanisms, similar to HTTP
session cookies, fo
On 3 February 2010 23:16, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 2/3/10 6:12 PM, Tim Hutt wrote:
>>
>> Ah yes that works nicely
Hmm maybe I spoke too soon. The interaction of the CSS size and the
canvas.width/height is confounding! It seems if you set a CSS width
of, say 80% then that is t
On 3 February 2010 20:14, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Yep. canvas.width = canvas.getBoundingClientRect().width;
Ah yes that works nicely, with one minor caveat: it seems to include
the width of the border if there is one, so you have to take that into
account. You're right, this is a better solution.
On 3 February 2010 19:23, Oliver Hunt wrote:
>> 1. Support more length specifiers for the width and height of a
>> canvas(%, em, etc.).
>
> This doesn't really make sense for the backing buffer as it is logically
> defined in terms of pixel.
The layout engine would decide how many pixels big it
On 3 February 2010 17:45, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 2/3/10 12:22 PM, Tim Hutt wrote:
>>
>> Yes it should be cleared and there should be a oncanvasresize() callback.
>
> What uses cases does this cover that are not covered by a general resize
> event?
Good point, it wo
On 3 February 2010 16:50, Simon Fraser wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2010, at 7:59 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
>> On 2/3/10 9:05 AM, Tim Hutt wrote:
>>> 1. You can only set the size exactly in pixels. It is very hard to get
>>> a resizable canvas that fills the page. You *can* s
Hi, I've been trying to use the HTML5 canvas to implement a slippy
map. It works ( http://concentriclivers.com/ ), but there were a
couple of issues I had for which there seems to be no good solution.
1. You can only set the size exactly in pixels. It is very hard to get
a resizable canvas that fi
16 matches
Mail list logo
