- From: Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@sru.edu>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:06:02 -0400
- To: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Joe D'Andrea" <jdandrea@gmail.com>
- Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue 4/17/2007 4:57 PM Henri Sivonen wrote: --------- <canvas> is really about providing a JavaScript API for the PDF 1.4 imaging model in a way that maps sanely to the kind of C libraries- Quartz 2D in particular-that would be suitable for implementing the painting part of a PDF 1.4 viewer. I'd expect the spec to give room for using such libraries without making onerous requirements about the details of Bézier tesselation or the details of anti-aliasing. For example, it should be permissible to use Quartz 2D, Cairo or WPF as the rendering library with whatever anti-aliasing algorithms that they provide. ------- Then I expect that if we use what you've said here to answer to my question about further patent entanglements associated with the rendering (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0975.html) , then we would predict no additional entanglements. (I'm assuming the things you mention are all tried and true and stem from algorithms developed in the early 1980's or before). May one assume that Deneba does not see a JavaScript API for drawing as conflicting with a drawing program of the same name? I'm just trying to convince myself that any reasons to argue against the <canvas> tag are independent of legalities. 'Cause if not, then it seems like we'd have to postpone discussion of it all 'til after some sort of legal consideration. It seems like the open air is a good place for such information to become known -- correct me if I'm wrong. David Dailey http://srufaculty.sru.edu/david.dailey
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 00:43:30 UTC