- From: Calogero Alex Baldacchino <alex.baldacchino@email.it>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:11:07 +0100
Anne van Kesteren ha scritto: > Wouldn't it make more sense to give this a more generic name, just > like the object it is associated with? That way we can later reuse it > for <img> elements and the like (if we want) without it having to look > silly and poorly thought out like the rest of the platform. :-P (E.g. > ImagePixelArray.) > > Other elements would need a rendering context anyway, thus the same reasoning could be applied to CanvasRenderingContext2D, CanvasGradient and CanvasPattern. Perhaps the best way to generalize their name is to remove the "Canvas" part (or changing it into "Graphics" or the alike -- both PixelArray and ImagePixelArray could be fine). However, "canvas" might be enough generic, when thinking to a graphics context, to be referred to whatever object allowing custom rendering without any confusion or poor association (like saying that a <canvas> is the main element for custom/dynamic rendering and that other elements might use the Canvas framework to provide similar capabilities). Personally, I'm fine with both choices. WBR, Alex -- Caselle da 1GB, trasmetti allegati fino a 3GB e in piu' IMAP, POP3 e SMTP autenticato? GRATIS solo con Email.it http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Con Danone Activia, puoi vincere cellulari Nokia e Macbook Air. Scopri come Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=8547&d=23-1
Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 09:11:07 UTC