- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:38:03 -0700
- To: Canvas <public-canvas-api@w3.org>
- CC: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com>
On 7/12/2011 12:28 PM, Steve Faulkner wrote: > hi all, > > Accepting that text editing in canvas is not a good idea and buidling > traditional complex UIs in canvas is not a good idea. > > Is the use of interactivity in canvas appropriate in any circumstance? There was some debate about remote access being a reasonable use case, as well as debate about whether the rendering of other non-web/legacy formats qualified as a reasonable use case. Is the support of legacy code an acceptable use case? https://github.com/kripken/emscripten/wiki emscripten runs LLVM byte code, and -necessarily- uses Canvas for painting output. -Charles
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2011 19:38:39 UTC