Re: Canvas

Hi, Maciej, et al-

A graphics API in a document description language still strikes me as a 
bad fit.  But I have a good deal of respect for your and Dave's 
technical opinions, and your arguments are reasonable.

Canvas is a good technology that's been widely implemented, and it would 
be good to have it published through W3C.

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> I don't see the benefits of having a separate spec, since it would be 
> defining an element that is part of the HTML language. Or do you think 
> HTML should define the element, but the graphics API (Context2D) goes in 
> a separate spec?

> Breaking out the drawing API (Context2D) into its own spec might be 
> reasonable, but I would not want to organize a task force or a separate 
> working group just to do that, at least at first. In general, I do think 
> APIs that aren't language-specific should be separate, not be part of a 
> language spec, and if there is really desire to use Context2D in other 
> specs I think it would be good to start with a review of the existing spec.
> The <canvas> element itself should definitely stay in HTML, even if it 
> references a separate spec for the drawing API.

All of this seems reasonable to me.  As I understand it, there is intent 
to do a 3D extension to it (Context3D?), and having all of this defined 
in the much more general HTML spec seems like it would be messy going 

If push comes to shove, though, and there is no efficient or reasonable 
way to get Canvas publish, I will back its inclusion in HTML.  I mean, 
it's not like it's up to me, but I want to make it clear that I don't 
want to hold it back at all.


Received on Saturday, 7 April 2007 01:34:25 UTC