- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 01:49:57 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Mar 17, 2010, at 6:25 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > > > > > Well even in that case you are saved one line of script to > > > conditionally clear the canvas fallback. > > > > Why would it be conditional? > > Because you don't want to clear the fallback in browsers where canvas is > not supported. (You also don't want to do any canvas drawing in that > case, but you *do* still want to provide alternate content, even if it > is generated dynamically). That conditional is already there, though -- you need it to draw the canvas. > I'm still not sure it is a hugely compelling feature, but it does not > seem problematic in the same way as prior proposals (like the adom="" > proposal or the <accessible> proposal). So while I do not strongly > support it, I also cannot find a reason to object. The reason to object is that it isn't necessary. We must have a minimum bar of usefulness for features we add, otherwise the language would quadruple in size with lots of minor redundant features. Features shouldn't be added because they're harmless. They should be added because they're essential. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 18 March 2010 01:50:26 UTC