Re: Accessibility, perfect or better Re: hit testing and retained graphics

What do you mean by "run the web"?

My comment was a reflection on the abundance of canvas implementations and how relative to SVG, canvas was quickly implemented. You asked me why I thought it likely that vendors would pick up -one- additional method in the specs. I answered; relative to more expensive standards such as SVG, which have taken a lot more time to implement.

We are still discussing a simple and straightforward continuation of the focus ring / shadow dom effort. The shadow Dom is already in the specs-- this is a minimal addition and neatly fits in with other semantics from the Accessibility tree, the canvas subdom and DOM Core.

It seems the arguments against it have consistently been of the dismissive variety.

I understand you're an idealist, but you're blocking the way forward.


On Jul 6, 2011, at 5:52 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:
>> I think your reply lacks substance.
>> 
>> Corporations are -have already- more likely to support the canvas spec because it is small, maps well to their 2d apis and is supported well by other vendors, it is in demand. It costs relatively little to support canvas. Approx $15k per implementation.
> 
> Again, if a corporation is trying to implement a subset of the web
> platform that won't actually run the web, I'm completely uninterested
> in helping them do so (as, I suspect, is every other browser
> implementor on this list).  We should not be encouraging this sort of
> behavior, and I won't waste my time on it.  They can invent their own
> proprietary APIs, rather than burdening the entire web with things
> that can be solved better with other existing web technologies.
> 
> If you meant something else by your comment, could you clarify?
> 
> ~TJ
>

Received on Thursday, 7 July 2011 01:17:27 UTC