W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2008

[whatwg] Usemap and ismap for canvas tag

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:26:41 +0900
Message-ID: <op.t7g72rykwxe0ny@widsith>
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 13:40:52 +0900, Greg Houston  
<gregory.houston at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Wouldn't it make more sense just to use SVG?
...
> So canvas is tuned more for creating dynamic charts and graphs whereas
> SVG is better apt for static sprites and interface elements with the
> bonus that it "can automatically detect interaction".
>
> WHATWG SVG and Canvas Comparison:
> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/SVG_and_canvas
>
> My second idea of being able to add canvas shapes directly to the DOM
> may be too much. Though since canvas "renders onto a fixed-resolution
> bitmap" and is basically a flat image, giving the canvas element the
> usemap and ismap properties doesn't seem like it would be a big issue.

This seems to make sense to me.

> Browser agents could probably use pretty much the exact same code for
> both the img and canvas tag where image maps are concerned. The
> benefit would be being able to add hot spots for links and tooltips to
> canvas drawings. It seems silly that something as dynamic as the
> canvas element would have less interactivity than the img element.

Right. On the other hand, loading it with a DOM would slow it down to the  
point that it loses its major benefit over SVG (at least as I see it) -  
the fact that it is relatively lightweight, ergo faster.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle fran?ais -- hablo espa?ol -- jeg l?rer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals   Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
Received on Monday, 3 March 2008 21:26:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:40 UTC