Re: Non-goal for HTML: Picture-perfect rendering

Le 17 avr. 2007 à 08:53, David Hyatt a écrit :
> As I've said in a previous thread, <canvas> is a dynamic <img>, so  
> I don't see any reason to object to the element purely on the  
> grounds that it primarily defines a visual object.

Would you consider that the authoring part is irrelevant?
I'm not saying it is bad, just looking for use case scenario on how  
it is difficult or not for authors to produce a graphics.

> However I also don't see the harm in inclusion of the graphics  
> context API in the same specification mainly because of the time/ 
> effort that would be involved standardizing it somewhere else (and  
> those responsible for the three implementations of canvas that  
> exist already are actively participating in this group).

As I said in the past, even if done by this WG, I have the feeling  
that it would speed up the process to make it a small individual  
As an example, Web API has been quite quick for XMLHttpRequest Object.

# The XMLHttpRequest Object

* first draft at W3C
   W3C Working Draft 05 April 2006
* Last Call
   W3C Working Draft 27 February 2007

Given the nature of implementations of Canvas, it should be quite  
quick to go through CR, given the number of tests available.
The issues lists  count only one open issue.

I don't know when Anne and Web API WG is planning to call for CR.

So I have the feeling that going with an HTML Task Force taking the  
canvas part in a small spec would really speed up the process.
	It is more agile in the method.
It will give satisfaction to the WG for having published something  
more quickly than the whole HTML specification (that will take a lot  
more time).

Related to this thread as well
Defining Meaning and Behavior in a spec

Karl Dubost -
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog -
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:28:08 UTC