On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Glenn Maynard <gl...@zewt.org> wrote:

> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Rik Cabanier <caban...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This has been requested before. ie
> http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/help-whatwg.org/2013-May/001209.html
>> The conclusion was that this can be accomplished using JavaScript. There
>> are JS libraries that can compress images and performance is very good
>> these days.
> This is a nonsensical conclusion.  People shouldn't have to pull in a PNG
> compressor and deflate code when a PNG compression API already exists on
> the platform.  This is an argument against adding toDataURL at all, which
> is a decision that's already been made.

If performance is good, why would this not be acceptable?
It seems that this would be a fragmented solution as file formats and
features would be added at different stages to browser engines. Would there
be a way to feature test that the optional arguments are supported?

Reply via email to