[whatwg] CSS canvas() function
chuck at jumis.com
Thu Dec 2 10:27:57 PST 2010
On 12/2/2010 2:48 AM, whatwg-request at lists.whatwg.org wrote:
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 21:58:46 -0500
> From: Boris Zbarsky<bzbarsky at MIT.EDU>
> To:whatwg at lists.whatwg.org
> Subject: Re: [whatwg] CSS canvas() function
> Message-ID:<4CF70B66.7060009 at mit.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> On 12/1/10 6:43 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> > My question was specifically for an out-of-document<iframe>.
> Most browsers don't load documents in such<iframe>s at all, right?
Is this one in specs somewhere? It's relevant to some work I'm doing on
We've certainly hit some issues with such thinking in IE, in our
in activating an Active X based canvas element. IE does not apply CSS
browser behaviors until
an element was added into the DOM tree.
As your side has stated, canvas elements outside of DOM require a
Generally, I agree, <iframe>s should not be used out of document, as we
have suitable APIs, like XHR.
That said, hackish solutions for corner cases will always exist: [iframe
style="visibility: hidden; z-index: -1"]
exists to serve. Just as style="opacity: 0" comes in extremely handy for
some cases. But those users
are free to write that into their scripting / HTML. It's just important
that we know it's a defined behavior.
>> > Should this work? The rendering of a non-seamless<iframe> doesn't
>> > depend on any other elements in the document. In general, any
>> > replaced element seems to fall into this camp.
> I don't think that's true. For example,<svg> is a replaced element in
> CSS terms. But its rendering depends on stylesheets, media, etc, etc.
Now that SVG is being integrated in with HTML that's certainly true; I'd
think there was a time
when it wasn't. I agree, "replaced element" is too broad.
More information about the whatwg