W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Canvas

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 13:39:49 -0700
Message-ID: <009901c7788b$b95410b0$3501a8c0@TERRA>
To: "Doug Schepers" <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>, <public-html@w3.org>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Doug Schepers" <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
To: <public-html@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Canvas 


> 
> Hi, Andrew-
> 
> Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>> 
>> I am not sure about legal issues related to the current <canvas>
>> propsal. If there are any of them then I propse to use my specification:
>> http://www.terrainformatica.com/sciter/Graphics.whtm
>> It is a) simpler, b) more technically effective and c) free of any 
>> royalties.
> 
> And this is yet another reason that 'canvas' is out of scope for HTML. 
> Let's not derail real HTML issues --a daunting scope as it is-- with 
> inevitably long arguments about a procedural drawing protocol.
> 

Exactly.

<canvas> as an entity is otrhogonal to the HTML.
I was surprised that people decided to include it even in WHATWG 
specification.

If it is pure scripting solution so it should be defined on scripting 
layer/DOM specification. Why dedicated <canvas> element is there 
at all? What is so <semantic> in it? 

I would expect that any DOM element have getGraphics() method.

In any case ability to render something in script is far from  
declarative idea of HTML. 

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com



> Regards-
> -Doug
> 
> Research and Standards Engineer
> 6th Sense Analytics
> www.6thsenseanalytics.com
> mobile: 919.824.5482
>
Received on Friday, 6 April 2007 20:40:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:42 UTC