W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2007

[whatwg] Why Canvas?

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:12:41 +0200
Message-ID: <op.twdn3fxh64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:06:30 +0200, WeBMartians <webmartians at verizon.net>  
wrote:
> I "copy." So, it's essentially a question of expediency. Is that proper  
> for a standard? Don't read me wrong - faced with getting the bloody  
> document out, I'd opt for what is running today, too.

If a standard doesn't consider practical contraints it will never become a  
standard as it will not be implemented.


> Formally stated, my position is "leave it as is," but out of curiosity,  
> do you see any obvious holes (especially security ones) with extending  
> the graphics primitives to handle any rectangular entities, not just  
> <canvas>?

There are lots of potential problems, such as how it would interact with  
plugins or some video if both render to the same context. Or if you allow  
it on elements such as <div> what would happen if text resizing caused the  
canvas to rescale, et cetera.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 04:12:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:36 UTC