- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 08:51:15 -0800
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote: > On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 19:56:54 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Thoughts on the problem or the proposed solution presented here? > > Why not use <object>? It already works and avoids overloading <canvas> for > something it was not designed for. <object> doesn't expose image APIs like the 'complete' event. Also, it takes arbitrary content, not just images, so you can't use it to contain user-supplied urls. Finally, <object> has bad interactivity behavior - if you drop SVG into <object>, the SVG will swallow any clicks, while SVG-in-<img> doesn't. Overall it just doesn't have sufficiently similar behavior to <img> to be used as a drop-in replacement. <canvas> doesn't *yet* expose the image APIs, but it wouldn't cause any conflicts to make it have them. A canvas without a @src would act just like an <img> without a @src, which I believe is already consistent with how <canvas> works. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 4 March 2011 08:51:15 UTC