The `Bitmap` type was referring to to its internal pixel format by a
name that represents the order of the color components as they are layed
out in memory. Contrary, the `Color` type was using a naming that where
the name represents the order of the components from most to least
significant byte when viewed as a unsigned 32bit integer. This is
confusing as you have to keep remembering which mental model to use
depending on which code you work with.
To unify the two, the naming of RGBA-like colors in the `Color` type has
been adjusted to match the one from the Bitmap type. This seems to be
generally in line with how web APIs think about these types:
* `ImageData.pixelFormat` can be `rgba-8unorm` backed by a
`Uint8ClamedArray`, but there is no pixel format backed by a 32bit
unsigned type.
* WebGL can use format `RGBA` with type `UNSIGNED_BYTE`, but there is no
such format with type `UNSIGNED_INT`.
Additionally, it appears that other browsers and browser-adjacent
libraries also think similarly about these types:
* Firefox:
https://github.com/mozilla-firefox/firefox/blob/main/gfx/2d/Types.h
* WebKit:
https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/main/Source/WebCore/platform/graphics/PixelFormat.h
* Skia:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/skia/+/refs/heads/main/include/core/SkColorType.h
This has the not so nice side effect that APIs that interact with these
types through 32bit unsigned integers now have the component order
inverted due to little-endian byte order. E.g. specifying a color as hex
constant needs to be done as `0xAABBGGRR` if it is to be treated as
RGBA8888.
We could alleviate this by providing endian-independent APIs to callers.
But I suspect long-term we might want to think differently about bitmap
data anyway, e.g. to better support HDR in the future. However, such
changes would be more involved than just unifying the naming as done
here. So I considered that out of scope for now.
7c315ef67f