[webkit-dev] Exposing CSS pixel metrics to the scripting environment

Sat Nov 27 10:39:57 PST 2010

I agree, it's a power struggle, not a technical issue, at this point. 
The use cases/defect
is technical, but the solution is stuck entirely on politics.

Circling back to rendering... Roc's suggestion of altering the standard 
behavior of the Canvas element
is on topic: he'd like to resize the canvas backing store to match css 
pixels when a
canvas element is reinitialized. I believe this would be a non-standard 
behavior, one which
would change how ImageData works.

I'm certainly participating in the standard bodies. I'll keep pushing 
the issue there.

I am trying to develop some consensus between vendors to unify some 
existing API behaviors.

At this point, I don't have the bandwidth to directly fix bugs, but I've 
been doing
my best to file them and draw developers attention to them. It's been 
working very well,
which has led me to greater enthusiasm toward WebKit.

-Charles

On 11/27/2010 10:34 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
> I usually avoid issues related to rendering, but this discussion
> sounds more like a power struggle than a technical issue.  Roc's
> comments sound like he doesn't think web sites should have
> zoom-specific behaviors, whereas you seem interested in implementing
> zoom-specific behavior.  One of the benefits of the standards process
> is that they sort out these kinds of arm-wrestling matches.
>
> This list is more focused on the nuts and bolts of WebKit development.
>   For example, the recent thread about how, architecturally, we should
> use mock objects for testing is more on-topic than a thread about a
> specific feature request.
>
> I don't mean to be off-putting.  I'm glad that you share our
> enthusiasm for WebKit specifically and the web more generally.  If
> you're interested in contributing to WebKit, a good place to start is
> by fixing bugs.  If you're interested in shaping the direction of the
> web platform, I'd encourage you to do that by participating in
> standards bodies.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Charles Pritchard<chuck at jumis.com>  wrote:
>> Yes, I certainly understand that.
>>
>> Still hoping its something we could talk about here, and that Mozilla may
>> have a change of mind.
>>
>> Currently, within WebKit Chromium, there's a very hackish way of calculating
>> the zoom ratio, by comparing innerWidth and outerWidth . This only works
>> when there is no side bar present. The innerWidth is returned in CSS pixels,
>> the outerWidth in device pixels. I don't know if that's a bug or not. I've
>> not been able to bring any discussion about unity in window.*Width
>> implementations, as we're still stuck on CSS metrics.
>>
>> Here's the reasoning Mozilla has behind disallowing this information:
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=486200
>>
>> Their refusal is not about the feature itself, but about whether that
>> feature would be exposed to untrusted scripts outside of an extension
>> context.
>>
>> ".... I don't want Web authors to have easy access to information about
>> screen pixels. They'll try to defeat our zooming or size things to screen
>> pixels, which we don't want." ( Robert O'Callahan ).
>>
>> The accessibility costs of withholding this information are very real.
>> Mozilla's plan is to limit such information to media queries in CSS: the
>> very hackish result of this would mean a dozen or so css declarations,
>> calibrated for the Mozilla browser environment, then some JS to pull through
>> and see which media queries were active. A proprietary, ugly, approach in
>> itself.
>>
>> I find it hard to accept that one man's decision to intentionally make
>> things difficult would have such reaching and lasting consequences.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/27/2010 8:15 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
>>> As a general rule, if Mozilla refuses to implement a feature, we're
>>> unlikely to implement the feature unless there is a very compelling
>>> reason to do so.  Proprietary features are harmful to the web, which
>>> is why we prefer to discuss new features in standards bodies.
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Charles Pritchard<chuck at jumis.com>
>>>   wrote:
>>>> The whatwg thread had no outcome other than the response of Mozilla
>>>> reiterating their prior conclusion. I've posted to WebKit for further
>>>> feedback.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see what broad base might develop within whatwg. In all pragmatic
>>>> aspects, webkit-dev seems to me the appropriate forum.
>>>>
>>>> Moz has stated clearly, repeatedly, that they do not wish to make the
>>>> information easily accessible. This conclusion was made prior to my defect
>>>> report and was unaltered by it. As of this date, I do not believe any webkit
>>>> contributors have voiced their opinion. I'd prefer to focus on the technical
>>>> aspects and likelihood of adoption. I'm posting to webkit, as I like to see
>>>> this issue resolved within the webkit code base.
>>>>
>>>> -Charles
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 26, 2010, at 10:13 PM, James Robinson<jamesr at google.com>    wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Are you posting here because there is something specific to WebKit in
>>>>> your query or because you dislike the outcome of the WHATWG thread?
>>>>> Most of us follow the WHATWG closely and generally prefer to discuss
>>>>> standardization issues such as this in that forum to get a broader
>>>>> feedback base.
>>>>>
>>>>> - James
>>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, November 26, 2010, Charles Pritchard<chuck at jumis.com>    wrote:
>>>>>> Recently I brought this issue up to the WHATWG mailing list, without
>>>>>> much luck.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently, mobile devices are given access to window.devicePixelRatio,
>>>>>> used for managing what are essentially higher resolution displays. See the
>>>>>> iPhone, Android, etc. Within the desktop environment, devicePixelRatio is
>>>>>> not updated on zoom events. I don't think it should be, but it's something
>>>>>> to consider. Such information is critical to adjusting the resolution of
>>>>>> bitmaps, be they from an image source or a canvas source, to be as crisp as
>>>>>> can be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Microsoft has gone ahead in IE9 and just exposed a collection of
>>>>>> metrics data:
>>>>>> deviceXDPI, logicalXDPI, systemXDPI and "Y" counterparts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Source:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms535868(VS.85).aspx<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms535868%28VS.85%29.aspx>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The task at hand is deciding whether or not to expose this information,
>>>>>> and where. Technically, it's quite simple, as it's only a few floating point
>>>>>> values which are already available to the WebKit environment. Zoom events
>>>>>> always trigger a 'resize' event for window, as they alter the innerWidth and
>>>>>> innerHeight of the layout. That resize event is the point in which the
>>>>>> scripting environment would check to see if CSS pixel metrics have changed,
>>>>>> and adjust the page accordingly. I want to note, that I am not speaking at
>>>>>> all about changing how zoom works, or in any way suggesting that zoom be
>>>>>> controlled by the scripting environment / web authors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am recommending that we take a look at Microsoft's  .screen
>>>>>> extensions, and decide whether they hold merit, and may be included in
>>>>>> WebKit. Doing so would mean that an independent implementation has picked up
>>>>>> the extension, and it may be on the fast track for standardization.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I had a rough time bringing this up with Mozilla. I'm hoping for a
>>>>>> little more focus here, on this mailing list. Again, I'm merely looking to
>>>>>> have CSS pixel metrics exposed, and I'm suggesting the MS proposal as it's
>>>>>> certain to exist in their upcoming IE9 release. Their proposal exposes six
>>>>>> floating point variables in the window.screen object, and is sufficient for
>>>>>> current needs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please let me know thoughts on the matter, and try to keep focused on
>>>>>> the fact that we're just looking to expose a few floating points to the
>>>>>> scripting environment, we're not looking to change any existing behaviors in
>>>>>> any existing elements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Charles
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> webkit-dev mailing list
>>>>>> webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
>>>>>> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
>>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> webkit-dev mailing list
>>>> webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
>>>> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
>>>>
>>