til HTML 6.
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Fedoniouk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 2007 July 31 20:44
To: WeBMartians; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Why Canvas?
- Original Message -
From: "WeBMartians" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:06:30 +0200, WeBMartians <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I "copy." So, it's essentially a question of expediency. Is that proper
for a standard? Don't read me wrong - faced with getting the bloody
document out, I'd opt for what is running today, too.
If a standard doesn't
van Kesteren [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 2007 August 01 03:51
To: WeBMartians; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Why Canvas?
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 01:34:01 +0200, WeBMartians <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Why not allow the graphics primitives to operate on any element (no
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 01:34:01 +0200, WeBMartians <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Why not allow the graphics primitives to operate on any element (not
just ) that has a height and width that may be expressed in
picture elements... ...even window.screen with its .availHeight,
.availWidth, .height,
] Why Canvas?
With a relatively stable (and implemented, actually) tag, this may
be a doubtful question. However, I can't think of any answer, so here
goes...
Why ?
Why not allow the graphics primitives to operate on any element (not just
) that has a height and width that may be express
- Original Message -
From: "WeBMartians" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 4:34 PM
Subject: [whatwg] Why Canvas?
With a relatively stable (and implemented, actually) tag, this
may be a doubtful question. However, I can
With a relatively stable (and implemented, actually) tag, this may be
a doubtful question. However, I can't think of any answer, so here goes...
Why ?
Why not allow the graphics primitives to operate on any element (not just
) that has a height and width that may be expressed in picture
eleme
