- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:54:24 +0000
- To: public-html@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9061
steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |faulkner.steve@gmail.com
Keywords| |TrackerRequest
--- Comment #3 from steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> 2010-03-31 21:54:24 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
> satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
> you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please
> reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
> Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
> title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue
> yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html
>
> Status: Rejected
> Change Description: no spec change
> Rationale: Unfortunately if we provide this we will be causing authors huge
> headaches, because while it would be possible to use canvas with image maps for
> the most trivial of pictures (pictures much better rendered on the server
> side), it becomes vastly more complicated to use image maps to do the slightest
> dynamic work once the canvas is made in any way more advanced. For example, any
> use of transforms, any use of large strokes, anything animated, etc, quickly
> makes it inordinately difficult to use image maps. In the meantime, all the use
> cases of image maps are trivially handled today using the API.
>
> Therefore I think it would be a design mistake to do this.
>
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2010 21:54:26 UTC