| 00:12 | <annevk> | hsivonen, I'm only aware of Firefox 3 but they turned it off |
| 01:02 | <Philip`> | Hmm, ImageData is all different to what I remember :-( |
| 01:10 | <Dashiva> | Philip`: And it's probably because of your own feedback ;) |
| 01:17 | <Philip`> | Dashiva: I'm not at all to blame for the fancy new things like dirty rects - I hardly even remember that that was discussed :-) |
| 01:18 | <Philip`> | Maybe I should have paid more attention |
| 01:30 | <Philip`> | You know, it'd be kind of nice if createImageData in WebKit didn't just use more and more memory each time you call it until it runs out of virtual memory and crashes |
| 01:31 | <Philip`> | Their implementation seems to limit the size of the ImageData you can create, but it's limited to about 400MB and you can call it lots of times |
| 01:33 | <takkaria> | heh |
| 01:34 | <Philip`> | but that's only a DOS bug so I assume nobody cares |
| 01:36 | <Philip`> | http://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/WebCore/html/CanvasRenderingContext2D.cpp#L1258 - "memset(data->data()->data().data(), ...)" - ! |
| 01:59 | <MikeSmith> | so I see that Mozilla has added support for the registerProtocolHandler method |
| 01:59 | <MikeSmith> | http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/2008/04/firefox-3-web-protocol-handlers/ |
| 02:00 | <MikeSmith> | Mark Finkle's blog |
| 05:09 | <doublec> | does the displaying of the image in the 'poster' attribute of <video> result in the video element resizing to fit the image, same as <img>? |
| 05:12 | <doublec> | Also, I saw a demo of <video> from Safari 3.1 and it seems that it loads the first frame of the video for display. I do that too and thought it was correct behaviour but now I can't find it in the spec. Have I missed it somewhere? |
| 05:12 | <Hixie> | <video> never resizes iirc |
| 05:12 | <Hixie> | or did we change that |
| 05:13 | <doublec> | It was changed to autosize to fit content iirc |
| 05:13 | <doublec> | I'm just not sure if that includes poster content |
| 05:13 | <Hixie> | oh hm |
| 05:13 | <Hixie> | dunno |
| 05:13 | <doublec> | since the decision predated poster |
| 05:14 | <Hixie> | i can't figure it out right now but if you send feedback and let me know what timescale you want to know for (i.e. do you want to know for ff3 or is this a post-ff3 thing) then i'll get back to you asap |
| 05:14 | <othermaciej> | well if it didn't autosize, what size would it use? |
| 05:15 | <othermaciej> | using the video size would partly defeat the point of having a poster frame |
| 05:15 | <doublec> | yes |
| 05:15 | <doublec> | I'm assuming it autosizes |
| 05:15 | <doublec> | to the image size |
| 05:15 | <othermaciej> | and if explicit width and height is set, then the question does not arise |
| 05:15 | <doublec> | since we don't have the video data to know the size of it |
| 05:16 | <othermaciej> | (presumably the common case is to either set a specific size or have your poster frame the same size as the video) |
| 05:16 | <Hixie> | the concern i could see would be the resizing again when you get the video |
| 05:16 | <Hixie> | but yes |
| 08:03 | <MikeSmith> | takkaria: you around? |
| 18:07 | <davidb> | hi all |
| 18:07 | <davidb> | i have a question about http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/section-interaction.html#scrollintoview |
| 18:08 | <davidb> | shouldn't we add that, if the element is already in the view port, don't perform a scroll? |
| 18:08 | <davidb> | it could be jarring. |
| 18:13 | <Philip`> | davidb: Current UAs (at least IE6, FF2, O9.2) always perform the scroll to align the element with the top/bottom of the window, even when it's already visible |
| 18:14 | <davidb> | Philip`: is that good? |
| 18:14 | <Philip`> | davidb: It's interoperable behaviour, so it's good from that point of view :-) |
| 18:14 | <Philip`> | I don't know how many sites rely on it working that way |
| 18:14 | <davidb> | Philip`: fair enough, but in the world of rich interactive web apps, i think we could be creating a nasty experience potentially. |
| 18:15 | <davidb> | Philip`: since the ARIA spec is recommending a scrollIntoView for activedescendants... (like panes in an accordion widget) |
| 18:17 | <davidb> | Philip`: i guess if this is already engrained... i'm fighting an uphill battle |
| 18:18 | <davidb> | maybe i'll post to the list anyways |
| 18:19 | <Philip`> | davidb: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0188.html suggests adding a new method which only scrolls if necessary |
| 18:19 | <davidb> | Philip`: nice find. thanks. |
| 18:19 | <Philip`> | That sounds safer than changing the behaviour of the existing method |
| 18:20 | <davidb> | Philip`: is ensureElementIsVisible a new thing? |
| 18:20 | <Philip`> | davidb: It's in http://www.whatwg.org/issues/ dom-focus, though sadly that interface is rubbish and impossible to search |
| 18:21 | <Philip`> | davidb: ensureElementIsVisible doesn't exist at all, except as a suggestion in that email |
| 18:21 | <davidb> | ok |
| 18:21 | <davidb> | (looks like a XUl thing) |
| 18:22 | <Philip`> | Oh, okay, so it does exist :-) |
| 18:22 | <davidb> | heh |
| 18:22 | <davidb> | :) |
| 18:22 | <Philip`> | (but not in HTML, which is the only thing in the world that matters) |
| 18:44 | <annevk> | I think media queries make the most sense for the <link height/width> thing too... |
| 18:44 | <annevk> | media="(width:51px) and (height:50px)" |
| 18:46 | <Philip`> | Has someone said why it can't use .ico files with all the image sizes stored together? |
| 18:48 | <annevk> | Too much bandwidth I think |
| 18:49 | <annevk> | I'd add that it's too much trouble :) |
| 18:57 | <davidb> | Philip`: thanks for the chat, i posted something to the list |
| 20:12 | <BenMillard> | WCAG 2.0 progresses to Candidate Recommendation (CR): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2008AprJun/0045.html |
| 20:26 | <davidb> | BenMillard: thanks for the tip |
| 20:50 | <BenMillard> | forwarded to HTMLWG: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Apr/0801.html |
| 21:34 | <Philip`> | Does anyone happen to have a PNG decoder written in JavaScript? |
| 21:34 | <Hixie> | decoding to ImageData? |
| 21:35 | <Philip`> | Decoding to some kind of JS array, not relying on the browser implementing any graphical features correctly |
| 21:36 | <Hixie> | ah |
| 21:37 | <Philip`> | It'd be nice to test that toDataURL returns a correct PNG with the right colour values, but I'm not sure of any ways that aren't either impossible or insane |
| 21:38 | <Hixie> | ah yes |
| 21:39 | <Hixie> | i searched google for "png decoder in javascript" |
| 21:39 | <Hixie> | first hit is someone saying he couldn't find one |
| 21:40 | <Hixie> | second hit is you suggesting writing one... |
| 21:47 | <Philip`> | Oh, I thought it was an original idea but I beat myself to it :-( |
| 21:47 | <Hixie> | hah |
| 21:50 | Philip` | reads the PNG spec |
| 21:51 | <Philip`> | "Figure 7.1 — Integer representation in PNG" |
| 21:51 | <Philip`> | Apparently integers are represented as "XML parsing failed: syntax error (Line: 26, Character: 5). Error: undeclared XML namespace prefix used in attribute name" |
| 21:52 | <Hixie> | haha |
| 21:52 | <Philip`> | In Firefox, the diagrams that aren't YSODs are displayed as XML trees since they're missing the SVG namespace |
| 21:53 | <Philip`> | (in the version at http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/www.libpng.org/pub/png/spec/iso/index-object.html ) |
| 21:54 | <Philip`> | Anyway, I imagine deflate decompression would be the most painful thing, and I really don't want to look at that, though the rest of PNG isn't too complex |
| 21:54 | <Hixie> | deflate compression should be too bad for a 1px image, right? |
| 21:59 | <Philip`> | That's still a whole 32 bits being compressed, so I'd guess there's lots of ways you can compress them and the decoder would have to copy with anything |
| 21:59 | <Philip`> | Or I could assume everyone uses libpng and the compressed file is always going to be identical |
| 22:00 | <Philip`> | Probably much easier to just not automate this kind of test, and do it manually with proper tools instead of JS |
| 22:00 | <Hixie> | heh |
| 22:00 | <Hixie> | quitter! |
| 22:00 | <Hixie> | :-P |
| 22:01 | <Philip`> | I'm just trying to use my time less inefficiently :-) |
| 22:04 | <Philip`> | Also, I don't want to discriminate against sufficiently clever UAs that produce highly optimised 1-bit paletted images, or sufficiently high-end UAs that produce 64-bit images, and also I really really don't want to implement a PNG decoder with all those features :-) |
| 22:05 | <Philip`> | Sadly you can't do 0-bit palettes |
| 22:06 | <Hixie> | clearly you are too lazy |
| 22:06 | <Hixie> | or not lazy enough |
| 22:06 | <Hixie> | i'm not sure |
| 22:40 | <Philip`> | Hmm... toDataURL only takes a parameterless MIME type argument |
| 22:40 | <Philip`> | APNG doesn't have its own MIME type, it just hijacks image/png |
| 22:41 | <Philip`> | So how can a browser use toDataURL to capture the dynamic state of the canvas and save it as APNG? :-( |
| 22:41 | <Hixie> | apng is just png |
| 22:41 | <Philip`> | There's no way to distinguish where you want to create a static PNG or an APNG |
| 22:41 | <Philip`> | s/where/whether/ |
| 22:41 | <Hixie> | there's no difference between a static png or apng |
| 22:41 | <Hixie> | apng only makes sense for images with more than one frame |
| 22:41 | <Philip`> | The difference is that static PNGs don't move, and APNGs do :-p |
| 22:42 | <Hixie> | toDataURL() doesn't generate moving images :-P |
| 22:44 | <Philip`> | CSS3 Color could be extended so you can say ctx.fillStyle = 'red; style=blink; freq=2.5', and then you'd be able to draw animated images onto the canvas, and then toDataURL would have to faithfully reproduce that |
| 22:45 | Philip` | is not at all convinced by his arguments, by the way |