- From: Sjoerd Visscher <sjoerd@w3future.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 20:28:55 +0200
Sjoerd Visscher wrote: > Dean Edwards wrote: > >> Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote: >> >>> To be honest, the think the idea of "drawing transactions" is better. >>> Here are the reasons: >>> >>> #1: It makes it so, if the develop wants it, that they can have things >>> that are "drawn" show up immediately. (I.e., they aren't forced to >>> use "double buffering" [or whatever].) >>> >>> #2: It makes it so you could have "long lasting" scripts execute. >>> >>> #3: It makes it so Java and C++ interfacing will work the same. >>> (I.e., you don't have to give C++ and Java an API to effectively do >>> "drawing transactions" without also giving this API to JavaScript.) >>> >>> So +1 for "drawing transactions" :-) >>> >> >> +1 >> >> I'd hate to see them implied by script blocks though. That way lies >> madness. ;-) >> >> -dean >> >> > > I'm just describing how it is currently implemented in Firefox. And how > DHTML rendering has been implemented for years. I don't think that will > change, and so canvas has to play with the same rules. > I have been thinking about this, and I think there's no way to change how this works. It would break a lot of existing content. And I don't like a special case for canvas either. However, it would be nice to have a forceRedraw() method on window, like SVG has. http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/struct.html#InterfaceSVGSVGElement -- Sjoerd Visscher http://w3future.com/weblog/
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 11:28:55 UTC