Re: Thoughts towards an accessible <canvas>

On Mar 19, 2009, at 8:34 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

>> I propose that
>> any instance of <canvas> that lacks at a minimum the 2 proposed  
>> mandatory
>> values be non-conformant and not render on screen. The inclusion of  
>> this
>> information should not be left to chance - the specification  
>> requires that some fallback content exist - and if it does not  
>> exist then the
>> <canvas> element is incomplete, thus it should simply fail all  
>> users...
> I think that this is a non-starter. As explained in a narrower  
> follow-up, the penalty to browsers who do this means that mainstream  
> browsers simply won't, in all probability.

I agree with Chaals on this. We would likely not be willing to stop  
rendering existing <canvas> content in Safari.


Received on Saturday, 21 March 2009 01:47:47 UTC