W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2010

Re: CfC: Adopt ISSUE-105 canvas-usemap Change Proposal to add usemap attribute to the canvas element

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 03:42:05 -0700
To: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "Chris Double" <cdouble@mozilla.com>
Message-ID: <op.veuqofo6wxe0ny@widsith.local>
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 00:22:01 -0700, Chris Double <cdouble@mozilla.com>  
wrote:

> <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is there anybody apart from Ian who does not understand what the change
>> proposal [1] is asking for?
>
> I think it would be great if more than a one liner was proposed in
> 'Details'.

True, and note my earlier suggestions for the detail which as far as I can  
see amounts to a couple of lines. That said, given that image maps are  
more than a decade old and haven't changed much (there was a change  
between 1998 and 1999 in the update of HTML 4 to HTML 4.01) I would expect  
anyone moderately familiar with HTML to understand what is under  
discussion.

> You posted an example of Canvas usage earlier where you
> felt adding 'usemap' would improve things. Describing this original
> canvas usage, followed by how 'usemap' would improve things would
> provide more details about what is actually wanted.

Yes.

> Including details
> on what parts of the specification that currently use 'usemap' should
> be pulled into canvas or  otherwise modified would be useful.

I believe that  
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Map4NotAdom#For_point_1:  
covers the details required. Note also  
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Map4NotAdom#For_point_5_.28fallback_content_not_normally_navigable.29:  
which provides a clarification, which was not present for the analgous  
case of object (which works but is a seperate question).

> Canvas is used in a more dynamic manner than img. Drawing into it is
> done via javascript. How do you handle things like the drawing of the
> canvas is not complete but the 'usemap' is active, etc. Perhaps issues
> about that could be discussed.

Sure.

For what it's worth, the recent version of the current spec on which I  
based my change proposal effectivly says that the image map refers to  
whatever it was the last time it was defined, and needs to be re-evaluated  
if changed, seems pretty clear to me which is why I didn't bother  
proposing any changes in that area.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Friday, 25 June 2010 10:42:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:18 UTC