Re: SURVEY: Accept requirement for immediate mode graphics a la canvas element?

Anne van Kesteren wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:15:11 +0100, James Graham <> wrote:
>> Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>>>    One alternative does not fit all even though a fallback may be an
>>>    improvement for some.
>>>    I am concerned that we would advocate using canvas over SVG where we
>>>    would have an opportunity to apply semantics to the base drawing,
>> I don't think we would advocate <canvas> where a more appropriate  
>> technology exists, only where it makes sense.

>This is in fact what the _second_ paragraph of the <canvas> section says:  
>"Authors SHOULD NOT use the canvas element in a document when a more  
>suitable element is available."

I think, this part of the working draft would be more convincing, if there was
an element like animation (as in SMIL, SVG Tiny 1.2 or vector or however one
might call it) to reference vector graphics too (optionally with server-sided
generation to avoid user-sided scripting) - either as an external file
similar to audio or video or to embed it in a mixed document XHTML+SVG
as a clear separation...
Alternatively the 'functionality' of canvas could be integrated into the img 
element - seems to be a raster image format too, therefore this fits somehow
together and does not require yet another element for the same type of
graphics. Else, without scripting support or without activated scripting,
canvas seems to be empty or presumably decorative or can be replaced
with other arbitrary elements like div maybe or span.

Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 15:06:26 UTC