- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:16:16 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote: > Gregory Rosmaita argues that "CANVAS is incapable of providing > semantics, while with SVG, one can apply semantic relationships." > But that's largely true of scripting in general, and it's not > constructive to ask scripting developers to look elsewhere than W3C > for their solutions; at least if W3C provides a scripting > solution, we can remind them about accessibility while we're > specifying it. I don't recall who, but someone pointed out that <canvas> is no less semantic than <img>, since it's essentially a dynamic <img> element with improved fallback. > Microsoft's response is: > > Although the idea of a standardized immediate mode graphics api > is a good one, I have two objections - first, that I believe > this requirement is not captured within the current HTML5 charter, > as it is not a semantic API; Interesting! So Microsoft isn't necessarily saying that <canvas> is out of scope, so much as the 2D Context API. > secondly, that HTML5 already must cover > a lot of ground, and graphics are a very specialized field. It would > be radically better to have different group of people representing > the expertise in this field, and those people are not all > interested in the rest of HTML5. I think it would be more productive to standardize the 2D Context the way it is currently implemented, then allow a separate group to develop a second-generation API. There are already too many applications dependent on current cross-browser implementations.
Received on Friday, 14 December 2007 00:15:43 UTC