Apple extensions to HTML
By glazou on Monday 19 July 2004, 12:14 - Standards - Permalink
I just found a few emails in my Inbox asking me what I think of the new Apple's canvas tag. I may surprise you but I really like it. Unlike many other standard gurus including friends Ian Hickson and Eric Meyer, I think Apple is totally right to do it the way it is doing it:
- this kind of user's request has been on our desks since 1997. Same thing for sliders. Apple does not want to wait for seven more years I presume... I just can't believe that so many years after Mosaic, we're still unable to draw a complex org chart or a computational diagram in a browser without a plugin or a specific build.
- Apple needs a solution working AND understandable right now. And a so little minority of web authors understand namespaces it's probably not a workable solution.
- We've all recently said that Mozilla and Microsoft extensibility mechanisms allow to add new features to the browser in a non-intrusive way. Well, Apple just challenges us.
- Now, at least the canvas tag proposal is really public, and not restricted to a techies' mailing-list or group of geeks. But it's also proposed to the WHAT-WG, and it's not only a marketer's dream. It's implemented.
Go on Dave, go on. Move forward.
Comments
is really canvas readable without plugin or specifics builds in any browsers ?
What differences with SVG ?
Dam, it is so far only implemented in Apple's Dashboard. It will probably be in Mozilla some time - see bugzilla.mozilla.org/show... . The difference between SVG and a canvas element is that the latter is a pixel-based rectangular shape on a web page (just like an image) you can draw into. SVG, though, can be mixed within the document, and is vector-based.
That Mozilla bug doesn't implement the same thing Safari has. It is in the XUL namespace and is therefore different.
just sincerely... """And a so little minority of web authors understand namespaces it's probably not a workable solution.""" and I will add """And a so little minority of web authors understand HTML it's probably not a workable solution."""
Count around you how many get it right for HTML. I'm not talking about validity... not even as simple as that. I'm talking about the semantics.
Karl, I wish ***all*** computer languages (including markup languages) in the whole world could be as badly understood as you seem to think HTML is. Millions of web authors, thousands of software tools. You are just closing your eyes in front of the biggest technological popular success of the last 25 years in the name of "Higher Rules". Analogy with linguistics : a language is rarely what an academy wants it to be, it's "made" by its speakers. Same thing for HTML, even if you don't like it.
agreed it's why... if you really want to make things simple... you just need div and span... And I'm not kidding... maybe a few things like lists but that's all.
The rest is just not used or misused, which makes them not useful at all. I mean strong, em, blockquote, cite, etc.
I think you understood my point. Btw HTML is far to be academics but a very geeky thing... An interesting poll would be to ask to people, what tags would you like as a web author.
Like for example, date, street, etc. but you don't say anything, you let people choose. I'm pretty sure we would end up with something very different that this archaic HTML which was made for geeks: See SAMP, CODE, PRE, etc.