On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Rik Cabanier <caban...@gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','caban...@gmail.com');>> wrote:

> If performance is good, why would this not be acceptable?

 I don't know why we'd provide an API to compress PNGs, then tell people to
use a script reimplementation if they want to set a common option.

As far as performance, I'm not sure about PNG, but there's no way that a JS
compressor would compete with native for JPEG.  Assembly (MMX, SSE)
optimization gives a significant performance improvement over C, so I doubt
JS will ever be in the running.  (

> 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?

No more than any other new feature.  I don't know if feature testing for
dictionary arguments has been solved yet (it's come up before), but if not
that's something that needs to be figured out in general.

Glenn Maynard

Glenn Maynard

Reply via email to