- From: Lee Kowalkowski <lee.kowalkowski@googlemail.com>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:39:42 +0100
- To: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On 29/07/07, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> wrote: > Lachlan Hunt wrote: > > Users want an increasingly dynamic and interactive experience on the > > web. Providing dynamic graphics is one way in which this can be > > achieved. So by providing examples where dynamic and interactive > > graphics have been used in the past, demonstrates the need for canvas. > > No, it does not. Following your own insistence that WG members > focus on the /problem/ rather than on potential solutions, > "examples where dynamic and interactive graphics have been used > in the past" demonstrate the need for "dynamic and interactive > graphics". They do /not/ demonstrate a need for "canvas", > which is (one of many possible) solutions. > > Philip Taylor Good point. I would have been more at ease if all the behaviour of the canvas element were applied to the existing img element instead. I never understood the rationale for a completely new element. -- Lee
Received on Sunday, 29 July 2007 20:39:44 UTC