- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 06:57:01 +0100
Ian Hickson schrieb: > On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Robert Sayre wrote: >> On 12/4/06, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: >>> It certainly isn't something that it would make sense to encourage. >> Is this different than what IE does with <canvas>? > > Yes, because with <canvas> the feature has been carefully designed to have > fallback content so that in browsers that don't support <canvas>, you can > still see content that represents the same information (assuming authors > provide it, of course). There's also an implementation of <canvas> for IE. > And, probably most importantly, <canvas> is defined in a specification > with exact parsing rules that define how it is to be treated, so if > Microsoft decide to implement it, they can do so and ensure > interoperability. None of this applies to sending SVG today as text/html. So which spec is <canvas> defined in (other the one discussed over here, which could define SVG-in-HTML as well if the maintainers decided to...)? Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 4 December 2006 21:57:01 UTC