On 2014-09-25, 12:43 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote:
On 09/25/2014 09:16 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
No, sorry for not being clear, I didn't mean pixel for pixel identical
results. My question was: are we going to have the same behavior for
pixelated in the downscaling case, since now the spec allows two
different behaviors for that case.
Gotcha.
Once the followup bug 1072703 is fixed, "yes", we'll have effectively
the same downscaling behavior as Chrome, with
"image-rendering:pixelated". (we'll both match our respective default
downscaling behaviors)
Before that (i.e. if we just take bug 856337), we won't -- we'd do
nearest-neighbor for downscaling, and they'll do their default thing.
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.
(I don't think that waiting on that bug is worthwhile... In the
meantime, authors who want a pixelated look (and want to support
Firefox) are going to have to use "-moz-crisp-edges" instead, which
means prefixed CSS will be propagating on the web, which is undesirable.)
Yeah, I see your point, and I agree that none of the alternatives are
clearly ideal, but I think we should put a bit more weight in ensuring
interoperability here. Note that if I'm getting the dates right, we'll
ship this after Chrome does, so early adopters will probably have to use
both pixelated and -moz-crisp-edges together at least for a short while.
Cheers,
Ehsan
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
