- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:29:39 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9061 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX --- Comment #2 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2010-03-31 21:29:38 --- EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: Unfortunately if we provide this we will be causing authors huge headaches, because while it would be possible to use canvas with image maps for the most trivial of pictures (pictures much better rendered on the server side), it becomes vastly more complicated to use image maps to do the slightest dynamic work once the canvas is made in any way more advanced. For example, any use of transforms, any use of large strokes, anything animated, etc, quickly makes it inordinately difficult to use image maps. In the meantime, all the use cases of image maps are trivially handled today using the API. Therefore I think it would be a design mistake to do this. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2010 21:29:41 UTC