- From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:45:38 +0100
- To: public-html@w3.org
Shelley Powers writes: > I particularly liked David Hyatt's response to the discussion, where > he called the Canvas object, and its associated API, nothing more than > a "dynamic <img> "[6]. If that's all the Canvas was to be, then yes, > inclusion in the HTML WG was appropriate. But Canvas, or I should say > the 2D API, is much more than just a "dynamic image". > > [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0324.html Could we define <canvas> simply to be a dynamic <img> -- that is, to make other uses, such as Bespin, non-conforming? In addition to the accessibility concerns of Bespin there are several other problems of using <canvas> to create user interfaces; Philip mentioned several in this message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0432.html If <canvas> were only used as a dynamic <img> then it would presumably be straightforward for authors to provide a non-graphical alternative: it would be the same as the alt text would be were the image generated server side and served as an <img>. Smylers
Received on Saturday, 15 August 2009 15:46:12 UTC