[html4all] Discussion: "Accept requirement for immediate mode graphics a la canvas element"

[Charles McCathieNevile]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:12:32 +0100, Philip Taylor (Webmaster)  
<P.Taylor at rhul.ac.uk> wrote:

...
> If <canvas>, or something
> analogous (see my response) is to make it into
> a future HTML spec., then it is essential that
> it provide adequate fallback capability to allow
> non-visual content to be substituted.

Agreed.

>  The latter
> will, by necessity, almost certainly be a /poor/
> substitute,

Only if written by people who don't understand what they are doing (i.e.  
the majority of content producers). Bit by bit people get better though -  
a lot of people have some idea how to use alt now, which is an improvement  
on 10 years ago.

> but I think we would be beating our
> heads against a 6' solid oak door if we were to
> try to insist that all fallback content be a
> perfect substitute for the inaccessible (visual)
> content.

Indeed.

> However, the real question is "Does <canvas> allow
> for fallback content at all?", and the draft spec.
> totally fails to clarify this.

As far as I can see it does so. Otherwise I would be raising hell - as an  
implementor of canvas, we need this. In any case, it should never be  
allowed forward without doing so.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals              Try the Kestrel - Opera 9.5 alpha