- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 13:39:49 -0700
- To: "Doug Schepers" <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>, <public-html@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Schepers" <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com> To: <public-html@w3.org> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 12:08 PM Subject: Re: Canvas > > Hi, Andrew- > > Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: >> >> I am not sure about legal issues related to the current <canvas> >> propsal. If there are any of them then I propse to use my specification: >> http://www.terrainformatica.com/sciter/Graphics.whtm >> It is a) simpler, b) more technically effective and c) free of any >> royalties. > > And this is yet another reason that 'canvas' is out of scope for HTML. > Let's not derail real HTML issues --a daunting scope as it is-- with > inevitably long arguments about a procedural drawing protocol. > Exactly. <canvas> as an entity is otrhogonal to the HTML. I was surprised that people decided to include it even in WHATWG specification. If it is pure scripting solution so it should be defined on scripting layer/DOM specification. Why dedicated <canvas> element is there at all? What is so <semantic> in it? I would expect that any DOM element have getGraphics() method. In any case ability to render something in script is far from declarative idea of HTML. Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com > Regards- > -Doug > > Research and Standards Engineer > 6th Sense Analytics > www.6thsenseanalytics.com > mobile: 919.824.5482 >
Received on Friday, 6 April 2007 20:40:10 UTC