Re: ISSUE-15 immediate-mode-graphics proposal carries over objections

Dan Connolly wrote:
> Gregory Rosmaita argues that "CANVAS is incapable of providing
> semantics, while with SVG, one can apply semantic relationships."
> But that's largely true of scripting in general, and it's not
> constructive to ask scripting developers to look elsewhere than W3C
> for their solutions; at least if W3C provides a scripting
> solution, we can remind them about accessibility while we're
> specifying it.

   I don't recall who, but someone pointed out that <canvas> is no less
semantic than <img>, since it's essentially a dynamic <img> element with
improved fallback.

> Microsoft's response is:
> 
>  Although the idea of a standardized immediate mode graphics api
>  is a good one, I have two objections - first, that I believe
>  this requirement is not captured within the current HTML5 charter,
>  as it is not a semantic API;

   Interesting! So Microsoft isn't necessarily saying that <canvas> is
out of scope, so much as the 2D Context API.

>  secondly, that HTML5 already must cover
>  a lot of ground, and graphics are a very specialized field. It would
>  be radically better to have different group of people representing
>  the expertise in this field, and those people are not all
>  interested in the rest of HTML5.

   I think it would be more productive to standardize the 2D Context the
way it is currently implemented, then allow a separate group to develop
a second-generation API. There are already too many applications
dependent on current cross-browser implementations.