- 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