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 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.) (side note: I'm keen on supporting "pixelated" in the near term because I need it in a pile of reftests that I'm writing for "object-fit" and "object-position", which will live in our directory of reftests-that-get-upstreamed-to-the-w3c. As it stands right now, I'll have to use "-moz-crisp-edges" in those reftests in order to get reftestable image-upscaling behavior; but I'd rather use "pixelated" as a single standardized supported-in-multiple-engines keyword, since these tests are destined for an upstream non-moz testsuite.) ~Daniel _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
