dolphinling at myrealbox.com
Wed Apr 20 08:17:11 PDT 2005
On Anne Van Kesteren's blog
Sjoerd Visscher said:
> This should never have been an element. The best way to do this is to
> only create a canvas interface, just like the audio interface. With
> the interface you would have to choose an image in the document to
> replace. Canvas has no right being an element because it doesn't do
> anything without scripting.
Ian Hickson replied:
> Sjoerd: You shoulda said something on the WHATWG list. :-) (Unless you
> did? I don't remember discussing this and can't find any outstanding
> open issues on <canvas>.)
> I don't see why an element should stop being an element just because
> it is only useful with scripting. I expect plenty of elements in HTML5
> to be intrinsincly linked to scripting. They're still elements. We
> still win by having UAs be able to spot them a mile away.
Dimitri Glazkov replied:
> I guess the real question is: how canvas is pertinent to the content
> of the page?
> As a way to put it in perspective: Is the photo paper part of the
Sjoerd Visscher replied:
> Ian: I hadn't thought of this solution before. On performance: if you
> put a script element in the head of the document containing var
> canvas1 = new Canvas(), UAs can initialize a canvas before actually
> encountering the location in the document where the canvas will be
> Dimitri: wrong perspective. My perspective: the canvas element is like
> issuing a newspaper with blanks for the pictures, and adding an
> addendum with drawing instructions.
I think I agree with Sjoerd here. Changing canvas to be applied to the
img/object elements instead of its own element would be much more
semantic, and would also provide better fallback.
More information about the whatwg