Re: Use Cases for The <canvas> Element

At 05:42 +1000 UTC, on 2007-07-30, Lachlan Hunt wrote:

> Philip Taylor (Webmaster) wrote:


>> "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.
> That's technically true, but in this case, we already have at least 3
> native implementations in Firefox, Opera and Safari, and a working
> scripted implementation for IE.

You seem to be saying that when <x> is implemented in certain UAs, there's no
longer a need to demonstrate the need for <x> -- that that need applies only
to elements/attributes that are not implemented in UAs.

As hard as I try, I don't see how to interpret that as anything else then "UA
vendors will do what they want, the rest of you will just have to play by
some rules we set for you".

Of course it's true that UA vendors are commercial parties, free to do as
they consider to be in their best interest. But it makes me wonder why anyone
else should bother to donate time/effort/expertise to this WG. If we have
such a double standard, then W3C, this WG, its members, really only serve as
some sort of legitimisation of what a few companies do.

(Don't mistake this for some sort of demonising of UA vendors. I've worked
for a UA vendor and know several people involved in browser development
personally. They are very nice people.)

> Plus, as my examples showed, it's already being widely used.

If that's an argument, then clearly the need for native SVG is stronger than
that for <canvas>, as Karl listed more examples.

(I'm not arguing for native SVG nor against <canvas>.)


> If there are problems with canvas that need to be addressed, then that
> is certainly open for discussion.

Provided the need to fix those problems are demonstrated? ;)

Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <>

Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 01:39:50 UTC