On 09/25/2014 10:29 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
>> I don't see this temporary difference as particularly problematic,
>> particularly given that "pixelated" is primarily an upscaling feature,
>> and given that we'll match them before too long. But if others
>> disagree, I'm open to holding off on shipping "image-rendering:
>> pixelated" until bug 1072703 is fixed.
>
> I would really prefer if we ship something interoperable with Chrome, so
> unless bug 1072703 is a very large project, I don't think we should ship
> support for pixelated without it.
Just to follow up on this:
I'm leaning towards of conservatism here & following ehsan's advice to
not ship "pixelated" until we've got downscaling-detection implemented,
for prettier downscaling with "image-rendering: pixelated". (bug 1072703)
Unfortunately, it turned out that this is a less-trivial project than I
was hoping -- it requires changes to all of our drawing paths, in all of
our per-platform gfx/2d/DrawTarget{$WHATEVER} files. It probably won't
be a ton of code, but it requires a good deal of testing/tweaking, on
every platform, to find all the paths that need adjusting, and to find
the right rects/transforms to inspect in each chunk of drawing code.
(And it likely requires some refactoring in these files, to share these
checks among the various drawing paths.)
So, I'm de-prioritizing work on "pixelated" for now, and I'm focusing on
finishing "object-fit" & "object-position" instead. I hope to circle
back to finish of "pixelated" before too long, though.
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
