Hi @Serguei, So I the reason I assumed that this added support for `options.resizeQuality` was because: 1. The WebIDL seems to have added this option in this issue, which also added the Enum for the options and so on - see https://github.com/mozilla-firefox/firefox/commit/e252b0e324b1#diff-2d17dae6ae7be7746e1db91d27dd55a017a97823d7e6a7c79d4d0f3130cef30c 2. The compatibility tests spotted the existance of this option for the first time https://github.com/mdn/browser-compat-data/pull/29135/changes#diff-0c05570d9108608f1e8895adaba621feb7ab86f1f793195f329273c40cd798e9R284 So just to be very clear the browser compat data is wrong? You could always specify `options.resizeQuality` and it would be used - just not with (sx, sy, sw, sh) also used? (I ask, because I'll need to get the compatibility data looked at).
Bug 2010125 Comment 11 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
Hi @Serguei, So I the reason I assumed that this added support for `options.resizeQuality` was because: 1. The WebIDL seems to have added this option in this issue, which also added the Enum for the options and so on - see https://github.com/mozilla-firefox/firefox/commit/e252b0e324b1#diff-2d17dae6ae7be7746e1db91d27dd55a017a97823d7e6a7c79d4d0f3130cef30c 2. The compatibility tests spotted the existance of this option for the first time https://github.com/mdn/browser-compat-data/pull/29135/changes#diff-0c05570d9108608f1e8895adaba621feb7ab86f1f793195f329273c40cd798e9R284 So just to be very clear the browser compat data is wrong? You could always specify `options.resizeQuality` and it would be used - just not with (sx, sy, sw, sh) also used? (I ask, because I'll need to get the compatibility data looked at). Worries me a bit. I thought I knew how to interpret IDL updates :-(