It's an interesting option to create a non-premultiplied ImageBitmap and
convert on to an ImageData. However I was under the impression the point of
ImageBitmap was to be drawn "without undue latency", which browsers could
interpret as a pre-allocated GPU texture. Doesn't this make it difficult to
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Justin Novosad wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
> > On 2/10/16 1:25 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> >
> >> In new JavaScript-only APIs we've made the decision to move away from
> the
> >> potentially-confusing HTML style crossOrigin
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Justin Novosad wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Ashley Gullen wrote:
>
> > ImageBitmap is not useful for getting the data from: it still requires
> > synchronous use of a canvas to turn in to an ImageData. I would encourage
> > browser vendors to look at
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Ashley Gullen wrote:
> ImageBitmap is not useful for getting the data from: it still requires
> synchronous use of a canvas to turn in to an ImageData. I would encourage
> browser vendors to look at my spec proposal to avoid this:
> http://wicg.github.io/img-conve
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 2/10/16 1:25 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
>
>> In new JavaScript-only APIs we've made the decision to move away from the
>> potentially-confusing HTML style crossOrigin enums in favor of the
>> RequestCredentials enum used by Fetch:
>> htt
ImageBitmap is not useful for getting the data from: it still requires
synchronous use of a canvas to turn in to an ImageData. I would encourage
browser vendors to look at my spec proposal to avoid this:
http://wicg.github.io/img-conversion/
On 10 February 2016 at 18:29, Gregg Tavares wrote:
> I
On 2/10/16 1:25 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
In new JavaScript-only APIs we've made the decision to move away from the
potentially-confusing HTML style crossOrigin enums in favor of the RequestCredentials
enum used by Fetch: https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#requestcredentials. You can see this
in
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Gregg Tavares wrote:
> Is there a reason in the proposal many of the options default to
> "implementation specific behavior"?
>
Yes. It is because different browsers have implemented their graphics
pipelines in different ways. For example, decoded images may or m
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> From: whatwg [mailto:whatwg-boun...@lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Xida
> Chen
>
> > We intend to push this feature forward in Blink, particularly we intend
> to
> > spec and implement the "Strongly desired options" listed on the Whatwg
Is there a reason in the proposal many of the options default to
"implementation specific behavior"?
If the point of ImageBitmap is to get the data (use Image if you don't
care), then it seems like having any "implementation defined" options,
especially as the default, is just asking for lurking b
From: whatwg [mailto:whatwg-boun...@lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Xida Chen
> We intend to push this feature forward in Blink, particularly we intend to
> spec and implement the "Strongly desired options" listed on the Whatwg
> proposal page. We would appreciate comments and suggestions on the
>
The Whatwg thread of requesting the ImageBitmap options feature can be
found here:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2013Jun/0114.html
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2013Jul/0075.html
The Whatwg proposal page can be found here:
https://wiki.what
12 matches
Mail list logo