On 15/03/2013, at 6:50 AM, Dana Jansens <dan...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Dean Jackson <d...@apple.com> wrote: > I'm not sure I like this proposal. Why is canvas special? Why doesn't <img> > get an opaque attribute (or flag)? Why not every element? > > There is ongoing work to infer opaqueness in every other kind of element when > possible. See for example https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70634 Yes, I'd prefer to infer it rather than specify it. For example, I could infer that a canvas is opaque if it has a non-transparent CSS background-color. Dean > > > I don't think the performance benefit, which is mostly going to be on very > limited hardware, is worth changing the rendering model that is consistent > across every other part of the Web. > > Dean > > On 15/03/2013, at 4:53 AM, Stephen White <senorbla...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Hi Dirk, >> >> There have been at least five options considered, with contributions from >> Chromium, Adobe and Mozilla so far. The moz-opaque idea was first floated >> by Robert O'Callahan from Mozilla, and Ian Hickson offered to spec it if >> another browser vendor wanted to implement it. I took him up on that offer, >> and have made my humble effort to massage it into a concrete proposal in the >> linked message above. >> >> After proposing it here, the alternative suggestion is to sync it up with >> the WebGL syntax, and use a context creation object at getContext() time >> rather than an attribute on the <canvas> element. I have no strong feelings >> about this either way, and I'm working on a patch to try out the WebGL >> approach (I already have a WebKit patch which implements the >> platform-independent parts of the opaque attribute approach). However, if >> we do go that way, I'd prefer not to make this proposal conditional on >> changes to the WebGL spec, concerns which I've outlined over on what-wg. >> >> Stephen >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschu...@adobe.com> wrote: >> This is a very long thread and I did not see any conclusions or agreement on >> this thread. Can you summarize the topic and the status on the acceptance >> level please? >> >> Greetings, >> Dirk >> >> On Mar 13, 2013, at 9:15 AM, Stephen White <senorbla...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> > Hi WebKittens, >> > >> > I'm planning to implement the canvas "opaque" attribute, as proposed here: >> > >> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2013Mar/0109.html. >> > >> > This is an attribute that causes the allocation of an opaque backing store >> > for <canvas>, allowing optimizations at the time the canvas is composited >> > into the page, such as disabling blending and culling obscured content. >> > It is based on the moz-opaque attribute currently shipping in Firefox. >> > >> > I'll be placing the feature behind the build-time flag >> > ENABLE(OPAQUE_CANVAS). >> > >> > Let me know if you have any comments or concerns. >> > >> > Stephen >> > _______________________________________________ >> > webkit-dev mailing list >> > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >> > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> webkit-dev mailing list >> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev > >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
