Re: New draft MWABP (17th Sept 09)

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Eduardo Casais <casays@yahoo.com> wrote:

> A quick scan (mainly for the issues discussed recently).
>
> 3.5.10 Consider Use of Canvas Tag or SVG For Dynamic Graphics
>
> I presume there will be still a short review of what you
> included or left out in the draft from previous comments,
> but one things struck me:
> -----
> In most cases Canvas is faster and should be preferred if
> it meets requirements.
> -----
> Do you have any new information about the performance
> advantage of Canvas? Jeff stated explicitly he was not
> able to determine how SVG and Canvas compared in this
> respect.
>
>
I knew that would be contentious. This was based on an (admittedly informal)
straw-poll on an internal mailing list of people who I know are using
Canvas/SVG in their applications (e.g. various web maps teams). It's
developer opinion not empirical measurement. I think it's probably valid,
and rings true (a bitmap verse a vector DOM) but we can ding if consensus is
against it.


>
> 3.6.1 Prefer Server-Side Detection Where Possible
>
> In the subsection "3.6.1.2 How to do it", you can shorten
> the text from:
> -----
> In its most basic form, the minimum evidence from the client device is the
> HTTP Accept header field.
>
> In practice, this evidence is insufficient to determine the key properties
> that will help to select/adapt the content appropriately, so additional
> header fields or other sources of information should be considered.
> Typically, the following header fields provide evidence of device
> capabilities:
> -----
> to:
> ----
> In its most basic form, the minimum evidence from the client device is the
> HTTP request header.
>
> Typically, the following header fields provide evidence of device
> capabilities:
> -----
> Since anyway the entire HTTP header is available to the
> server, and the discussion examines the Accept field as
> well the other important fields.
>
> Will update.

>
> E.Casais
>
>
>
>
>