On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Gregg Tavares wrote:
> >
> > Could you explain what other interpretations of the following you think
> > are reasonable?:
> >
> > # The source rectangle is the rectangle whose corners are the four points
> > # (sx, sy), (sx+sw, sy), (sx+sw, sy+sh), (sx, sy+sh).
> > # [...]
> >
Gregg Tavares wrote:
If it's so clear, why do you think 2 of the 4 browsers that implemented
it apparently got it wrong?
Because the implementations preceded the current spec text; they were
just implementing "something like Apple's Canvas" without trying too
hard to be compatible in edge cas
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:07 AM, Aryeh Gregor
> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Gregg Tavares wrote:
> > It's ambiguous because images have a direction. An image that starts at
> 10
> > with a width of -5 is not the same as an image that starts at 6 with a
> width
> > of +5 any more th
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Gregg Tavares wrote:
> It's ambiguous because images have a direction. An image that starts at 10
> with a width of -5 is not the same as an image that starts at 6 with a width
> of +5 any more than starting in SF and driving 5 miles south is not the same
> as star
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Gregg Tavares wrote:
> >
> > The diagram in the docs
> >
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/the-canvas-element.html#images
> >
> > Clearly show SX maps to DX, SY maps top DY
> >
> > But that is n
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Gregg Tavares wrote:
>
> The diagram in the docs
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/the-canvas-element.html#images
>
> Clearly show SX maps to DX, SY maps top DY
>
> But that is not the interpretation that is implemented. The
> interpretation tha
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009, Gregg Tavares wrote:
> >
> > The specific ambiguity I'd like to bring up has to do with the several
> > versions of a function, context.drawImage. They take width and height
> > values. The spec does not make it clear what
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009, Gregg Tavares wrote:
>
> The specific ambiguity I'd like to bring up has to do with the several
> versions of a function, context.drawImage. They take width and height
> values. The spec does not make it clear what is supposed to happen with
> negative values.
>
> My person
On Jul 10, 2009, at 6:38 PM, Gregg Tavares wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
Inconsistency doesn't lead to no one depending on a behaviour, it
just means sites only work in one browser. Your suggesting would
result in sites being broken in all browsers -- the only
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
> Inconsistency doesn't lead to no one depending on a behaviour, it just
>> means sites only work in one browser. Your suggesting would result in sites
>> being broken in all browsers -- the only options from here on out are either
>> nothing g
On Jul 9, 2009, at 9:09 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:
On Jul 9, 2009, at 9:25 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
I disagree. When I scale a rectangular opaque image I expect
rectangular opaque results. The Firefox implementation does not
do this.
If you believe that to be the case then you can always f
On Jul 9, 2009, at 9:25 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
I disagree. When I scale a rectangular opaque image I expect
rectangular opaque results. The Firefox implementation does not do
this.
If you believe that to be the case then you can always file a bug at
bugs.webkit.org .
Why would he file
Inconsistency doesn't lead to no one depending on a behaviour, it
just means sites only work in one browser. Your suggesting would
result in sites being broken in all browsers -- the only options
from here on out are either nothing gets drawn (as in gecko and
presto), or the destination is
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
>
> On Jul 9, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Gregg Tavares wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
>
>> I'd like to make a passionate plea that the spec say "implementations
>>> must
>>> support negative widths and negative heights
On Jul 9, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Gregg Tavares wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
I'd like to make a passionate plea that the spec say
"implementations must
support negative widths and negative heights and draw the image
backward
effectively flipping the result".
We'd
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
> I'd like to make a passionate plea that the spec say "implementations must
>> support negative widths and negative heights and draw the image backward
>> effectively flipping the result".
>>
>
> We'd need to be fairly sure that such a change wo
I'd like to make a passionate plea that the spec say
"implementations must
support negative widths and negative heights and draw the image
backward
effectively flipping the result".
We'd need to be fairly sure that such a change would not break
existing content -- this is a change that wou
Hello, I'm new to the list so I hope this is the right place and format.
I've been having a look at the canvas tag API specification and I noticed at
least one ambiguity. (I'm guessing those that have been on the list for a
while are laughing)
The specific ambiguity I'd like to bring up has to d
Hello, I'm new to the list so I hope this is the right place and format.
I've been having a look at the canvas API specification and I noticed at
least
one ambiguity. (I'm guessing those that have been on the list for a while
are
laughing)
The specific ambiguity I'd like to bring up has to do wit
19 matches
Mail list logo
