- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:51:07 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009, Smylers wrote: > Shelley Powers writes: > > > I particularly liked David Hyatt's response to the discussion, where > > he called the Canvas object, and its associated API, nothing more than > > a "dynamic <img> "[6]. If that's all the Canvas was to be, then yes, > > inclusion in the HTML WG was appropriate. But Canvas, or I should say > > the 2D API, is much more than just a "dynamic image". > > > > [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0324.html > > Could we define <canvas> simply to be a dynamic <img> -- that is, to > make other uses, such as Bespin, non-conforming? > > In addition to the accessibility concerns of Bespin there are several > other problems of using <canvas> to create user interfaces; Philip > mentioned several in this message: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0432.html > > If <canvas> were only used as a dynamic <img> then it would presumably > be straightforward for authors to provide a non-graphical alternative: > it would be the same as the alt text would be were the image generated > server side and served as an <img>. The spec already says: | Authors should not use the canvas element in a document when a more | suitable element is available. [...] | | When authors use the canvas element, they must also provide content | that, when presented to the user, conveys essentially the same function | or purpose as the bitmap canvas. I don't know how stronger we can make this. We can't go as far as you're suggesting, since it would make things like games non-conforming, and they're one of the main use cases. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 15 August 2009 21:51:44 UTC