- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 06:10:44 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Julian Reschke wrote: > Ian Hickson schrieb: > > On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Robert Sayre wrote: > > > On 12/4/06, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > > > > It certainly isn't something that it would make sense to encourage. > > > Is this different than what IE does with <canvas>? > > > > Yes, because with <canvas> the feature has been carefully designed to have > > fallback content so that in browsers that don't support <canvas>, you can > > still see content that represents the same information (assuming authors > > provide it, of course). There's also an implementation of <canvas> for IE. > > And, probably most importantly, <canvas> is defined in a specification with > > exact parsing rules that define how it is to be treated, so if Microsoft > > decide to implement it, they can do so and ensure interoperability. None of > > this applies to sending SVG today as text/html. > > So which spec is <canvas> defined in Web Apps 1.0. > (other the one discussed over here, which could define SVG-in-HTML as > well if the maintainers decided to...)? The point is that it doesn't, yet Sam is already using it. While in Sam's case it can be justified as experimentation and is indeed very useful experience to have for the development of the spec, it isn't something that could be widely jusitifed. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 4 December 2006 22:10:44 UTC