- From: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:42:47 +0000
There is nothing to stop browser developers using the same underlying implementation for canvas and svg rendering, so the overlap in function becomes a plus point from a programming point of view. Until either Canvas or SVG become completely available there will be a place for both. GazHay On 12 Mar 2007, at 22:34, ddailey wrote: > Maciej wrote: >> >> <canvas> is a programmatic immediate mode drawing surface. For >> retained-mode structured graphics, SVG would be your solution. >> Both things are useful. > > I would like to believe that Canvas is useful, but being both naive > and stubborn, I don't yet see why. > > In reading through the WHATWG draft, there are about N things that > it seems to be talking about. I see N-2 of those as redundant with > the SVG specs. The two components that jump out at me as missing > from SVG are getImageData and putImageData -- the former being > used, as I understand it, by Opera and perhaps others, to > interrogate pixel values and to gather rectangular sub-bitmaps. > Both of these are things that it would be nice (for me) if SVG had. > The other N-2 things are already present in SVG, in addition to > N*5 other things that are not in Canvas. > > Those who have worked with Canvas for the past several years have > probably written documents somewhere to explain just why the two > specs (SVG and Canvas) should not be merged. If someone could point > me toward that rationale, I will emerge enlightened and grateful > (having shed both my naivite and my stubbornness). > > In the meantime asking browser developers to implement both SVG and > Canvas (given what looks like a high percentage of overlap in > function) just seems like a way to artificially pump up staffing > levels on browser development projects. > > ddailey >
Received on Monday, 12 March 2007 15:42:47 UTC