- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 23:22:50 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18630
Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WONTFIX
--- Comment #5 from Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> 2012-08-20 23:22:50 UTC ---
Okay. Thank you. I don't have strong opinion on this because we don't have a
strong use case that requires option B. Let's close the bug.
Shinya, please feel free to reopen this if you encounter a use case which
requires option B.
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > I don't have a strong technical reason, but it looks natural for me at first
> > glance.
>
> Here's why I think we should stay with option A (which is what is in HTML spec
> right now):
>
> 1) No additional work necessary. The HTML spec clearly states that the event is
> dispatched on HTMLImageElement.
>
> 2) Logically, there's a clear separation of responsibilities. The
> <real-image-implementation> is just a pixel surface. The loading machinery
> lives in HTMLImageElement, where it should be. In a way, the
> <real-image-implementation> could be just a canvas tag. It has no loading/error
> plumbing whatsoever.
--
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 23:22:51 UTC