- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:54:20 -0700
- To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:59:09 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
wrote:
>
> On Jun 23, 2010, at 4:46 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>
>> Since you think the proposal was a bad idea, there must be a counter
>> proposal you can write that isn't a bad idea. Given that the proposal
>> is "Add an attribute", (and assuming that it copies the sentence or so
>> to give you complete explicit editing instructions to execute the
>> proposal), I would expect a counter proposal that explains *why* it is
>> a bad idea to document the existing behaviour of browsers in this way.
>
> Are you saying that browsers actually do something when a usemap
> attribute is present on the canvas element?
Yes, that is what I (was) saying.
> Which browsers? Do you have a test case?
On further testing with a clearer test case, it turns out that I was
wrong. The proposal would indeed require implementation work to be done.
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 15:55:19 UTC