[whatwg] Processing the zoom level - MS extensions to window.screen

Robert O'Callahan robert at ocallahan.org
Tue Nov 23 18:46:22 PST 2010

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck at jumis.com> wrote:

>   SVG is a document format. It is not reliably implemented. It's far more
> expensive to implement SVG on a new environment than Canvas.

So? You don't have to implement it.

I can't do much for you here other than explain to you what I'm hearing.
> a) Why are you using our Canvas implementation instead of our SVG
> implementation.
> b) Why are you using ctx.fillText('Test') instead of
> element.appendChild(document.createElement('text')).textContent = 'Test'.
> For answers
> a: I'm using it because I work across a variety of browser platforms.
> Canvas is far better supported.

It doesn't make sense to request entirely new features (that by definition
aren't currently supported) because existing features aren't widely

Anyway, I'm not sure why you think <canvas> is far better supported than
SVG. What browser supports <canvas> but not SVG?

>> Sure, but there are plenty of canvas uses that aren't animating all the
>> time (I've seen image editing apps, sites that use canvas as their
>> _input_, not their output, etc).
> 1. Name one.


Robert's suggestion would radically alter the existing functionality of
> canvas

Only in a way that maintains compatibility with existing content. Otherwise
I wouldn't have suggested it.

> and require a whole lot of work from other vendors.

Not really.

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for
they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures
every day to see if what Paul said was true." [Acts 17:11]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20101124/1a6223ce/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the whatwg mailing list