- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:54:25 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9061 steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |faulkner.steve@gmail.com Keywords| |TrackerRequest --- Comment #3 from steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> 2010-03-31 21:54:24 --- (In reply to comment #2) > 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 21:54:27 UTC