Re: [whatwg] SVG extensions to canvas
2009/5/5 Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org: On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 4:35 AM, Giovanni Campagna scampa.giova...@gmail.com wrote: What is embed used for? Flash and videos. Both have intrinsic sizes What is object used for? Videos, Java applets and Silverlight. They all have intrinsic sizes. In principal, maybe they do, but typically those sizes are not exposed to the browser and are not used in layout. This is an implementation problem (and likely a bug: if a don't specify width/height for video I should get the intrinsic size, not a default) Basically, for what concerns rendering (the element being replaced in the CSS meaning of term), img,embed,object,svg have intrinsic sizes (they may be rescaled, but this is ortogonal) SVG images often don't have an intrinsic size. What's the intrinsic size of this image? svg xmlns=http://www.w3.org/2000/svg; linearGradient id=g x1=0 y1=0 x2=1 y2=0 stop stop-color=red offset=0/stop stop-color=lime offset=1/ /linearGradient rect x=0% y=0% width=100% height=100% fill=url(#g)/ /svg That svg hasn't got intrinsic sizes, so it cannot be rendered on a canvas. This doesn't preclude the use of svg with intrinsic sizes, that are given only by width/height attributes on svg. Rob -- He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. [Isaiah 53:5-6] Giovanni
[whatwg] Timers
Do setTimeout and setInterval belong in HTML 5? They're not really DOM related. They're supported by ActionScript, which doesn't have a DOM. AS supports the same signatures that HTML 5 does (plus another one). HTML 5 already says they're specific to Javascript/ECMAScript, so there's no need for other DOM implementations to support them. I searched the ES5 final draft and didn't see a reference to them anywhere. Have they been considered for ECMAScript 5 or any version? I didn't find any discussion in the WHATWG archives. http://www.adobe.com/support/flash/action_scripts/actionscript_dictionary/actionscript_dictionary646.html -- Jon Barnett
Re: [whatwg] Just create a Microformat for it - thoughts on micro-data topic
Ian Hickson wrote: On Tue, 5 May 2009, Manu Sporny wrote: Creating a Microformat is a very time consuming prospect, including: ... Microformats Due Diligence Rules ... Are you saying that RDF vocabularies can be created _without_ this due diligence? What I am saying is that the amount of due diligence that goes into a particular vocabulary should be determined by the community that will use the vocabulary. Some of these will be large communities and will require an enormous amount of due diligence, others will be very small communities, which may not require as much due diligence as larger communities, or they may have a completely different process to the Microformats process. The key here is that a micro-data approach should allow them to have the flexibility to create vocabularies in a distributed manner. Ian Hickson wrote: On Tue, 5 May 2009, Ben Adida wrote: Ian Hickson wrote: Are you saying that RDF vocabularies can be created _without_ this due diligence? Who decides what the right due diligence is? The person writing the vocabulary, presumably. Your stance is a bit more lax than mine on this. I'd say that it is the community, not solely the vocabulary author, that determines the right amount of due diligence. If the community does not see the proper amount of due diligence going into vocabulary creation, or the vocabulary does not solve their problem, then they should be free to develop a competing alternative. This is especially true because the proper amount of due diligence can easily become a philosophical argument - each community can have a perfectly rational argument to do things differently when solving the same problem. Your position, that the vocabulary author decides the proper amount of due diligence, is rejected in the Microformats community. In the Microformats community, every vocabulary has the same amount of due diligence applied to it. I think that this is a good thing for that particular community, but it does have a number of downsides - scalability being one of them. It creates a bottleneck - we can only get so many vocabularies through our centralized, community-based process and the barrier to creating a vocabulary is very high. As a result, we don't support small community vocabularies and only support widely established publishing behavior (contact information, events, audio, recipes, etc). So, maybe this requirement should be added to the micro-data requirements list: If micro-data is going to succeed, it needs to support a mechanism that provides easy, distributed vocabulary development, publishing and re-use. -- manu -- Manu Sporny President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: A Collaborative Distribution Model for Music http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/04/04/collaborative-music-model/
Re: [whatwg] Just create a Microformat for it - thoughts on micro-data topic
Ian Hickson wrote: One organization for *all* topics, ever? I don't think that would really scale. Even for major languages, like HTML, we haven't found a single organisation to be a successful model. Then you, Ben, and I agree on this particular point: In order for semantic/micro-data markup to scale well, we must ensure that distributed vocabulary development, publishing and re-use is a cornerstone of the solution. Manu's list didn't mention anything about a single organisation Then I wasn't clear enough - I meant that the single organization was the Microformats community and that the list works for that particular community, but is not guaranteed to work for all communities. You could say that the single community could be the W3C or WHATWG - pushing vocabulary standardization solely through any one of these organizations would be the wrong solution, therefore we should be cognizant of that in this micro-data discussion. Surely all of the above apply equally to any RDFa vocabulary just as it would to _any_ vocabularly, regardless of the underlying syntax? Not necessarily... 6: Justifying your design is a key part of any language design effort also. Not doing this would lead to a language or vocabulary with unnecessary parts, making it harder to use. What happens when the people you're justifying your design to are the gatekeepers? What happens when they don't understand the problem you're attempting to solve? Or they disagree with you on a philosophical level? Or they have some sort of political reason to not allow your vocabulary to see the light of day (think large multi-national vs. little guy)? In the Microformats community, this stage, especially if one of the Microformat founders disagrees with your stance, can kill a vocabulary. 7: With any language, part of designing the vocabulary is defining how to process content that uses it. Not if there are clear parsing rules and it's easy to separate the vocabulary from the parsing rules. This should be a requirement for the micro-data solution: Separation of concerns between the markup used to express the micro-data (the HTML markup) and the vocabularies used to express the semantics (the micro-data vocabularies). 9: The most important practical test of a language is the test of deployment. Getting feedback and writing code is naturally part of writing a format. This statement is vague, so I'm elaborating a bit to cover the possible readings of this statement: Writing markup code (ie: HTML) should be a natural part of writing a semantic vocabulary meant to be embedded in HTML. Writing parser code (ie: Python, Perl, Ruby, C, etc.) should not be a natural part of writing a semantic vocabulary - they wholly different disciplines. Microformats require you to write both markup code and parser code by design. As far as I can tell, the steps above are just the steps one would take for designing any format, language, or vocabulary. Are you saying that creating an RDF vocabulary _doesn't_ involve these steps? How is an RDF vocabulary defined if not using these steps? I don't believe that Ben is saying that at all - those steps are best practices and apply generally to most communities. However, they do not work for all communities and they do not work well when they are transformed from best practices to a requirement that all vocabularies must meet in order to be published. -- manu -- Manu Sporny President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: A Collaborative Distribution Model for Music http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/04/04/collaborative-music-model/
Re: [whatwg] SVG extensions to canvas
SVG images often don't have an intrinsic size. What's the intrinsic size of this image? svg xmlns=http://www.w3.org/2000/svg; linearGradient id=g x1=0 y1=0 x2=1 y2=0 stop stop-color=red offset=0/stop stop-color=lime offset=1/ /linearGradient rect x=0% y=0% width=100% height=100% fill=url(#g)/ /svg That svg hasn't got intrinsic sizes, so it cannot be rendered on a canvas. This doesn't preclude the use of svg with intrinsic sizes, that are given only by width/height attributes on svg. That's really really bad, as that means sometimes drawing you svg will work, and sometimes it won't. That's why it's a bad API. --Oliver
