- From: David Dailey <david.dailey@sru.edu>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:49:54 -0400
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
At 01:54 PM 4/16/2007, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >Even in its current state, <canvas> probably defines the output more >precisely than SVG. This pixel-perfect discussion has left me a bit confused. Does Apple's patent claim on <canvas> cover any of the rendering methods, or is it that the patent covers exactly the <canvas> element as it appears in the WHATWG recommendation? The reason I ask, is that I have noticed considerable quality differences in the way that VML for example is rendered, vs SVG with Adobe plugin in IE, vs SVG in Opera or Firefox. I naively assumed Adobe may have used patented rendering technologies in their SVG plugin and that was why it looked so good. Why might that matter in this instance? Suppose that in order to actually build a suitable rendering engine for <canvas> as specified, that there might also be other IP entanglements, related to the rendering -- though not associated with the tag itself, that might expose a manufacturer to risk? That is, might any extant patents limit a developer from being able to handle the pixel perfect stuff without exposure? For example, in the extant implementations of <canvas> does Apple use any fancy QuickTime stuff, or are there gnu licenses or some such thing associated with Mozilla and Opera that would prevent another developer from having sufficient room to build a rendering engine from scratch without itself running afoul of someone's IP? Speaking of IP entanglements, I would assume that ACD Systems (formerly Deneba) has stated that it has no problems with the use of "canvas" for this purpose, given their drawing software of that name? Seems like trademark dilution could rear its head if not. Just curious, David Dailey http://srufaculty.sru.edu/david.dailey/svg/SVGAnimations.htm
Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 18:49:42 UTC