Re: ACTION-885

This looks reasonable to me, I'll add your text change to the outstanding
list of editorial changes which I expect to get to this week.

Thanks,

Adam.

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jeff Sonstein <jxsast@rit.edu> wrote:

> On Nov 3, 2009, at 6:12 AM, Jo Rabin wrote:
>
>  5. AOB
>>
>> Review of and tidy up of ISSUEs and ACTIONs - we have no open ISSUEs and
>> we have a handful of open actions on DKA, JeffS and Adam (hint hint).
>>
>
> RE: ACTION-885
>
> I thought we had finished w this & closed it...
> last I remember
> the text now in the document
> (courtesy the hacking-and-slashing
>  ummm
>  I mean "fine editing"
>  of Adam <grin/>)
> was something everyone could at least "live with"
>
> while I would *like* to be providing more detailed guidance to developers
> nonetheless
> I can *live with* just saying what is in the document at this point:
>
> -----  snip  -----
> 3.5.10.1 What it means
>
> Canvas and SVG provide alternative options for incorporating graphics in a
> Web application. Support for these technologies varies across devices so in
> many cases the choice of which technology to use will depend on the target
> devices for a given application.
>
> The Canvas element defines a drawable bitmap region onto which JavaScript
> can be used to render simple graphic primatives. In contrast, SVG is an XML
> language for defining vector graphics -- the nodes and elements are added to
> a DOM and can be modified later using JavaScript.
> SVG is well-suited for graphics that must be scalable and whose components
> need to be modified (e.g. panning and zooming a map) whereas Canvas is best
> suited for cases where a static bitmap is sufficient (e.g. drawing a
> scatter-chart, visual effects, reflections etc).
>
> In most cases Canvas is faster and should be preferred if it meets
> requirements. However, since Canvas generates a flat bitmap it is not
> inherently accessible and so should not be used as the sole means of
> conveying information.
> -----  snip  -----
>
> my only teenie quibble
> would be with the last sentence
> which I think might better be changed from:
>
> "it is not inherently accessible and so"
>
> to instead read:
>
> "it is inherently not accessible as it is not part of the DOM, and so"
>
> can we close this out at this mtg?
>
> jeffs
>
> --
> "Workers were called,
>  and human beings came."
> - Max Frisch -
> ============
>
> Prof. Jeff Sonstein
>
> http://www.it.rit.edu/~jxs/ <http://www.it.rit.edu/%7Ejxs/>
> http://ariadne.iz.net/~jeffs/ <http://ariadne.iz.net/%7Ejeffs/>
> http://chw.rit.edu/blog/
> http://ariadne.iz.net/~jeffs/jeffs.asc<http://ariadne.iz.net/%7Ejeffs/jeffs.asc>
> http://www.it.rit.edu/~jxs/emailDisclaimer.html<http://www.it.rit.edu/%7Ejxs/emailDisclaimer.html>
>
>
>