- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 15:38:02 -0700
- To: Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, HTML A11Y TF Public <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Jay Munro <jaymunro@microsoft.com>, "Rik Cabanier (cabanier@adobe.com)" <cabanier@adobe.com>, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
- Message-ID: <CAGN7qDB9dPsE46XuS+hbCtTw2T+hYHn6v0vLagpY58u6W3kt_w@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Mark, thanks for sending this out! However, the issue of event retargeting is still not solved. Since this is so complex to implement, it is be unlikely that we will have 2 independent implementations soon and that we won't have to make additional changes to the spec. On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org> wrote: > As we prepare to move Canvas back to LC (we have committed to get the HTML > WG > chairs a stable document *this* week), I reviewed the Hit Regions section > of > Canvas L1 ED [1] and had the following questions: > > # if control is null > > Should we have a step in "The region representing the control" [2] > processing > algorithm that matches Step 1 in "The region representing the ID" [3] that > reads > something like: > > "If control is null, return nothing and abort these steps." > > Now that control and ID are both optional, I think we should handle the > case > that they are not specified. > Yes, we've been going back and forth on that. Since we now have the 'clearHitRegions' call and it was allowed in the original proposal, let's allow unbacked regions with no ID. > > # clearHitRegions() not defined > > While we reference clearHitRegions() in a Note following "The region for a > pixel" algorithm [4], we don't define a processing algorithm for this > method. > Suggest adding one below the removeHitRegion() definition [5]. > > # Move Note RE: clearRect() and clearHitRegions() > > The note referenced above [4] would make more sense following the > definition of > removeHitRegion() and clearHitRegions() where we actually discuss methods > for > removing and/or clearing Hit Regions. > > # Steps 5 & 8 from addHitRegion() [6] are unclear and seem to suggest the > opposite of their intention. > > Steps 5 & 8, as they are worded, seem to suggest to me that if the ID or > control > referenced in the arguments object are not null, and they reference the ID > or > control of a previous region, then the *previous* region should remain > associated with this region. This is in direct conflict with steps 9 & 10 > and > the behavior we discussed on call, that adding a Hit Region that shares a > control or ID with a previously referenced region would remove/clear the > previous region. > > I also feel like steps 5 & 8 should both come before or after step 7, not > before > and after it. There may be a reason for this order that I'm not aware of, > though. > It is worded a bit strange but the "previous region for the id/control" is an object that is used in steps 9 and 10. > > I look forward to your feedback, > > Mark > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas_CR/#hit-regions > [2] > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas_CR/#the-region-representing-the-control > [3] > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas_CR/#the-region-identified-by-the-id > [4] > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas_CR/#the-region-for-a-pixel > [5] > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas_CR/#dom-context-2d-removehitregion > [6] > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/2dcontext/html5_canvas_CR/#dom-context-2d-addhitregion > -- > Mark Sadecki > Web Accessibility Engineer > World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative > Telephone: +1.617.715.4017 > Email: mark@w3.org > Web: http://w3.org/People/mark > >
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2014 22:38:34 UTC