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

Re: Formal definition of HTML5 (was Re: Version information)

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:33:35 +0200
Message-ID: <462C998F.2050103@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>

On 16/04/2007 19:34, Chris Wilson wrote:
> T.V Raman [mailto:raman@google.com] wrote:
>> If we're talking about HTML producing pixel perfect rendering,
>> then I suggest it's time to press the reset button -- that was
>> never HTML's goal, and nor should it ever become its goal.
> 
> I agree, but then I don't think it's rational to put a graphics
> API in the middle of the HTML spec.

Is it more rational to put it elsewhere or leave it aside ?
I don't think so. Users have shown great interest (and that's a
weak word) for that feature. Canvas is the one and only thing
that pinged the whole web world showing it is possible to extend
HTML and make it more modern. Canvas API is simple and already
widely used. I don't see any good reason why it should not be in
the middle of the HTML spec.

On 16/04/2007 19:45, Murray Maloney wrote:
 > HTML is not the place for a graphics API. This should be promoted to
 > Design Principle.
 >
 > It may well be the best Graphics API that was
 > ever built, but it still doesn't belong inside of HTML.

Care to explain why, Murray ? In the name of spec sanity only ?

</Daniel>
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 11:32:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:53 GMT