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).
# [...]
# The
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:07 AM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+...@gmail.comsimetrical%2b...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Gregg Tavaresg...@google.com 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
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
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 personal
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch 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
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 that is
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch 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 not
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com 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
On Jul 10, 2009, at 6:38 PM, Gregg Tavares wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com 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
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
On Jul 9, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Gregg Tavares wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com 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
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
On Jul 9, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Gregg Tavares wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Oliver Hunt oli...@apple.com wrote:
I'd like to make a passionate plea that the spec say implementations
must
support negative widths and
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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
