- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:26:41 +0900
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 13:40:52 +0900, Greg Houston <gregory.houston at gmail.com> wrote: >> Wouldn't it make more sense just to use SVG? ... > So canvas is tuned more for creating dynamic charts and graphs whereas > SVG is better apt for static sprites and interface elements with the > bonus that it "can automatically detect interaction". > > WHATWG SVG and Canvas Comparison: > http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/SVG_and_canvas > > My second idea of being able to add canvas shapes directly to the DOM > may be too much. Though since canvas "renders onto a fixed-resolution > bitmap" and is basically a flat image, giving the canvas element the > usemap and ismap properties doesn't seem like it would be a big issue. This seems to make sense to me. > Browser agents could probably use pretty much the exact same code for > both the img and canvas tag where image maps are concerned. The > benefit would be being able to add hot spots for links and tooltips to > canvas drawings. It seems silly that something as dynamic as the > canvas element would have less interactivity than the img element. Right. On the other hand, loading it with a DOM would slow it down to the point that it loses its major benefit over SVG (at least as I see it) - the fact that it is relatively lightweight, ergo faster. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle fran?ais -- hablo espa?ol -- jeg l?rer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
Received on Monday, 3 March 2008 21:26:41 UTC