I agree, it's a power struggle, not a technical issue, at this point.
The use cases/defect
is technical, but the solution is stuck entirely on politics.
Circling back to rendering... Roc's suggestion of altering the standard
behavior of the Canvas element
is on topic: he'd like to resize the canvas backing store to match css
pixels when a
canvas element is reinitialized. I believe this would be a non-standard
behavior, one which
would change how ImageData works.
I'm certainly participating in the standard bodies. I'll keep pushing
the issue there.
I am trying to develop some consensus between vendors to unify some
existing API behaviors.
At this point, I don't have the bandwidth to directly fix bugs, but I've
been doing
my best to file them and draw developers attention to them. It's been
working very well,
which has led me to greater enthusiasm toward WebKit.
-Charles
On 11/27/2010 10:34 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
I usually avoid issues related to rendering, but this discussion
sounds more like a power struggle than a technical issue. Roc's
comments sound like he doesn't think web sites should have
zoom-specific behaviors, whereas you seem interested in implementing
zoom-specific behavior. One of the benefits of the standards process
is that they sort out these kinds of arm-wrestling matches.
This list is more focused on the nuts and bolts of WebKit development.
For example, the recent thread about how, architecturally, we should
use mock objects for testing is more on-topic than a thread about a
specific feature request.
I don't mean to be off-putting. I'm glad that you share our
enthusiasm for WebKit specifically and the web more generally. If
you're interested in contributing to WebKit, a good place to start is
by fixing bugs. If you're interested in shaping the direction of the
web platform, I'd encourage you to do that by participating in
standards bodies.
Adam
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Charles Pritchard<ch...@jumis.com> wrote:
Yes, I certainly understand that.
Still hoping its something we could talk about here, and that Mozilla may
have a change of mind.
Currently, within WebKit Chromium, there's a very hackish way of calculating
the zoom ratio, by comparing innerWidth and outerWidth . This only works
when there is no side bar present. The innerWidth is returned in CSS pixels,
the outerWidth in device pixels. I don't know if that's a bug or not. I've
not been able to bring any discussion about unity in window.*Width
implementations, as we're still stuck on CSS metrics.
Here's the reasoning Mozilla has behind disallowing this information:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=486200
Their refusal is not about the feature itself, but about whether that
feature would be exposed to untrusted scripts outside of an extension
context.
".... I don't want Web authors to have easy access to information about
screen pixels. They'll try to defeat our zooming or size things to screen
pixels, which we don't want." ( Robert O'Callahan ).
The accessibility costs of withholding this information are very real.
Mozilla's plan is to limit such information to media queries in CSS: the
very hackish result of this would mean a dozen or so css declarations,
calibrated for the Mozilla browser environment, then some JS to pull through
and see which media queries were active. A proprietary, ugly, approach in
itself.
I find it hard to accept that one man's decision to intentionally make
things difficult would have such reaching and lasting consequences.
On 11/27/2010 8:15 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
As a general rule, if Mozilla refuses to implement a feature, we're
unlikely to implement the feature unless there is a very compelling
reason to do so. Proprietary features are harmful to the web, which
is why we prefer to discuss new features in standards bodies.
Adam
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Charles Pritchard<ch...@jumis.com>
wrote:
The whatwg thread had no outcome other than the response of Mozilla
reiterating their prior conclusion. I've posted to WebKit for further
feedback.
I don't see what broad base might develop within whatwg. In all pragmatic
aspects, webkit-dev seems to me the appropriate forum.
Moz has stated clearly, repeatedly, that they do not wish to make the
information easily accessible. This conclusion was made prior to my defect
report and was unaltered by it. As of this date, I do not believe any webkit
contributors have voiced their opinion. I'd prefer to focus on the technical
aspects and likelihood of adoption. I'm posting to webkit, as I like to see
this issue resolved within the webkit code base.
-Charles
On Nov 26, 2010, at 10:13 PM, James Robinson<jam...@google.com> wrote:
Are you posting here because there is something specific to WebKit in
your query or because you dislike the outcome of the WHATWG thread?
Most of us follow the WHATWG closely and generally prefer to discuss
standardization issues such as this in that forum to get a broader
feedback base.
- James
On Friday, November 26, 2010, Charles Pritchard<ch...@jumis.com> wrote:
Recently I brought this issue up to the WHATWG mailing list, without
much luck.
Currently, mobile devices are given access to window.devicePixelRatio,
used for managing what are essentially higher resolution displays. See the
iPhone, Android, etc. Within the desktop environment, devicePixelRatio is
not updated on zoom events. I don't think it should be, but it's something
to consider. Such information is critical to adjusting the resolution of
bitmaps, be they from an image source or a canvas source, to be as crisp as
can be.
Microsoft has gone ahead in IE9 and just exposed a collection of
metrics data:
deviceXDPI, logicalXDPI, systemXDPI and "Y" counterparts.
Source:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms535868(VS.85).aspx<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms535868%28VS.85%29.aspx>
The task at hand is deciding whether or not to expose this information,
and where. Technically, it's quite simple, as it's only a few floating point
values which are already available to the WebKit environment. Zoom events
always trigger a 'resize' event for window, as they alter the innerWidth and
innerHeight of the layout. That resize event is the point in which the
scripting environment would check to see if CSS pixel metrics have changed,
and adjust the page accordingly. I want to note, that I am not speaking at
all about changing how zoom works, or in any way suggesting that zoom be
controlled by the scripting environment / web authors.
I am recommending that we take a look at Microsoft's .screen
extensions, and decide whether they hold merit, and may be included in
WebKit. Doing so would mean that an independent implementation has picked up
the extension, and it may be on the fast track for standardization.
I had a rough time bringing this up with Mozilla. I'm hoping for a
little more focus here, on this mailing list. Again, I'm merely looking to
have CSS pixel metrics exposed, and I'm suggesting the MS proposal as it's
certain to exist in their upcoming IE9 release. Their proposal exposes six
floating point variables in the window.screen object, and is sufficient for
current needs.
Please let me know thoughts on the matter, and try to keep focused on
the fact that we're just looking to expose a few floating points to the
scripting environment, we're not looking to change any existing behaviors in
any existing elements.
-Charles
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
