On 2014-09-24, 9:12 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote:
On 09/24/2014 09:32 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
Or, alternatively, it seems like the use case here would be
addressed by doing what the spec said before.
Following up more on this: the CSSWG has now resolved to *allow* (but
not require) the formerly-required-by-spec prettier downscaling
behavior, per the first "RESOLVED" at the top of
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Sep/0384.html
Hmm, doesn't that basically allow non-interoperable implementations? :(
I think Jonas' idea on having separate properties for the upscale vs.
downscale cases is much better.
I filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1072703 to cover
this.
Given that the main use-cases for "image-rendering:pixelated" are for
*upscaling*, I don't think the optional-better-downscaling-work should
block us from shipping a straightforward (& spec-compliant)
nearest-neighbor implementation for "pixelated".
We can add better-downscaling logic separately, in the followup bug --
though it may even arrive in the same release where we ship "pixelated"
(or if not that, soon after), since as noted in my other repsonse to
dbaron, it's not *too* much work.
So, what's Chrome's position with regards to this spec churn? Is what
they're going to ship in Chrome 38 going to be interoperable with our
implementation?
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
