On 21 Apr 2005, at 08:40, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Oh yeah, I agree on programmable image being quite useful. The
question is why only limit the capability to a special CANVAS element
(whose semantics are questionable), when any block-level element could
have this ability.
I agree with this, and with
On 21 Apr 2005, at 01:20, Olav Junker Kjær wrote:
I don't completely understand the rationale for the canvas-element in
WA1.
It seems to overlap a lot with the use case for SVG. Of course WF2
competes directly with XForms also, but WF2 has the critical advantage
that it is backwards compatible,
On 13 Apr 2005, at 19:31, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Dean Jackson wrote:
Ok. Could you provide us with a list of features you believe need use
cases listed? That would be really helpful in creating such a
document.
All of them.
That's never going to happen, just like the XHTML wo
On 13 Apr 2005, at 18:26, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Jim Ley wrote:
Then please publish a seperate requirements document that does list
[the use cases].
Ok. Could you provide us with a list of features you believe need use
cases listed? That would be really helpful in creating such a d
On 12 Apr 2005, at 20:31, Olav Junker Kjær wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
FYI, the W3C has just acknowledged receipt of the Web Forms 2.0 draft
that Mozilla and Opera submitted (on behalf of the WHATWG).
Is this good or bad news? The W3C does not seem very enthusiastic
about the submission.
I apologis
On 12 Apr 2005, at 20:49, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
FYI, the W3C has just acknowledged receipt of the Web Forms 2.0 draft
that Mozilla and Opera submitted (on behalf of the WHATWG).
We'll be publishing another call for comments that takes into account
the technical comments tha
