W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-canvas-api@w3.org > April to June 2010

RE: Clarification on non-interactive, static, visual media

From: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 17:31:08 +0000
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EAACC9DF6817544486F0D0ADA05CA4281A498F0F@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:46:27 +0200, Simon Pieters < simonp@opera.com>

>On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:16:27 +0200, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
>wrote:

>> I would like to get clarification on the following passage [1]:
>>
>> "In non-interactive, static, visual media, if the canvas element has 
>> been previously painted on (e.g. if the page was viewed in an 
>> interactive visual medium and is now being printed, or if some script 
>> that ran during the page layout process painted on the element), then 
>> the canvas element represents embedded content with the current image 
>> and size. Otherwise, the element represents its fallback content 
>> instead."

>This seems like a stupid requirement. Why would we want to print the fallback? In many cases the fallback will be "your browser does not support canvas".

I think we should remove this paragraph from the spec. I have opened this bug to track this issue: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9710 

Jatinder Mann | Internet Explorer Program Manager 


-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Pieters [mailto:simonp@opera.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 10:46 PM
To: public-canvas-api@w3.org; Jatinder Mann
Subject: Re: Clarification on non-interactive, static, visual media

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:16:27 +0200, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> I would like to get clarification on the following passage [1]:
>
> "In non-interactive, static, visual media, if the canvas element has 
> been previously painted on (e.g. if the page was viewed in an 
> interactive visual medium and is now being printed, or if some script 
> that ran during the page layout process painted on the element), then 
> the canvas element represents embedded content with the current image 
> and size. Otherwise, the element represents its fallback content 
> instead."

This seems like a stupid requirement. Why would we want to print the fallback? In many cases the fallback will be "your browser does not support canvas".


> I interpret this to mean, in a non-interactive, static, visual media, 
> where the canvas element has not been previously painted on, you will 
> see the fallback content. An example of this scenario would be 
> printing a webpage where nothing has been drawn on the canvas. What 
> are the other scenarios?
>
> I have tried printing a webpage containing the following code, but I 
> did not see the fallback content on Chrome, Safari, Opera, or Firefox 
> browsers.
>
> 0 <html>
> 1 <head>
> 2 </head>
>
> 3 <body>
> 4 <canvas>This is the fallback</canvas>
>
> 5 </body>
> 6 </html>
>
> Thanks,
> Jatinder
>
> [1]
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-canvas-element.html#the-canvas-elemen

> t
>
> Jatinder Mann | Internet Explorer Program Manager
>


--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software

Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 17:31:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:50 UTC