On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote: > I've concerns about this approach. It would mean the sub-tree is no longer > separably viewable -- though not implemented at the moment, it is still an > option. I strongly agree that preventing the sub-tree being separably viewable is problematic, indeed to the point of it being a non-starter. The sub-tree was intended to act as an alternative for canvas like @alt is for "img". Making it nonsensical in complex cases would discourage UAs from making it viewable. This would prevent, for example, a user with at least some sight and images and canvas disabled from getting access to consistent text equivalents. This would break the specified use of "canvas" as a dynamic version of "img". > A clickable area is more like an SVG path, not a CSS box. Also true. -- Benjamin Hawkes-LewisReceived on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 06:18:42 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:39 UTC