--- Jim Ley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/24/05, Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Apr 23, 2005, at 22:16, dolphinling wrote: > > > > > There's one implementation, and one > implementation in testing builds. > > > It would also be an easy change to make for > those implementations (and > > > they could still keep support for the "old way" > if they need). > > > > The release date of Tiger is very near. Safari > will ship with canvas. > > So? What's that got to do with the Web Applications > Standard? > > > Once it is out, you can't pull it back. > > It's never been in a published standard, the > specification still > states that it's subject to change. I'm very > disappointed that the "do > not implement in released software" has been removed > without any > discussion on the list of the maturity of the > specification, but > that's just the normal high handed approach of the > working group. But > even without that, there's no need to bless a poor > implementation > decisison simply because one minority browser has > implemented it and > used it solely in non-web content. > > If successful shipped implementations is what > matters, then there's > lots of successful IE extensions that do the same as > canvas and other > elements which it would be much more sensible to go > with.
I'm not against that; I thought one of the ideas behind the WHAT working group is to take already working defacto standards and simply specify them and implement them in other browsers, such as innerHTML and XmlHttpRequest. I'd much rather choose an already existing, if not perfect, canvas or drawable surface type defacto standard than create an imaginary "perfect" one like we seem to be doing on this list. Running code is king.... Brad > > Jim. >
