Yeah, Philip has been slowly convincing me that something like
imageRenderingQuality with high and auto values* would be useful,
basically for reasons similar to what you just gave. I still don't
believe there should be a "low" option, because (as i have said
before) the author is not in a position to be able to determine what
performance tradeoffs are involved in the users system.
--Oliver
* This property was suggested by Philip Taylor in an earlier email
On Jul 1, 2008, at 1:18 AM, Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
The image rendering quality property is indeed unable to hit the
tradeoff
between beauty of presentation and rendering speed. However, it is
perfectly all right to say 'this content is some fancy GUI can be
rendered
downscaled without degrading the content - but that content contains
engineering drawings that must be rendered as accurately as can
be.' This
is semantic information the browser has no way of inferring.
Cheers,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Oliver Hunt
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 2:18 AM
To: Mark Finkle
Cc: Vladimir Vukicevic; Robert O'Callahan; WHATWG; David Hyatt;
Jerason
Banes; Ian Hickson; Robert O'Callahan
Subject: Re: [whatwg] [canvas] imageRenderingQuality property
So now we need to define levels of graphic burden? and at what level
of burden does the quality suffer? Seems just as hard to define.
Having the author explicit say "this has to be as high quality as
possible" or "less can be low quality" seems better and we have
examples of other specs offering the same kind of control.
No. The whole point is that the UA is in the best position to
identify what the tradeoffs are, not the author -- if you want a flag
to specify the quality to be used then that would require you to
determine what the tradeoffs were yourself, with no substantial
knowledge of what combination any given user was actually using. You
need to realise that different UAs and different platforms have
substantially different performance characteristics.
