[whatwg] "canvas" tag and animations ?

Dean Edwards wrote:
> Sjoerd Visscher wrote:
> 
>> 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
>>
> 
> I think (I might be wrong) that you are discussing internal 
> implementation details of a UA (in this case Firefox). This is not what 
> Charles and I are discussing. We are talking about how the implemented 
> API would work in a browser environment.

No, I'm talking about what you are talking about.

-- 
Sjoerd Visscher
http://w3future.com/weblog/

Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 13:28:34 UTC