11329 2010-11-16 23:11:59 +0000 Browsers must generate resize event during a zoom. 2013-08-08 13:26:41 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified CSS CSSOM unspecified PC All RESOLVED FIXED a11y, a11ytf, a11y_canvas P2 major --- 1 schwer zcorpan annevk chuck cooper ian jonas mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking rayrayray111 www-dom zcorpan public-webapps-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 42576 0 schwer 2010-11-16 23:11:59 +0000 This is necessary for an author to make canvas rendering adjustments due to zooming levels changes resulting in revised logical DPI changes. 43661 1 ian 2010-12-30 05:53:39 +0000 Anne, 'resize' events are a CSSOM issue, right? 44660 2 annevk 2011-01-24 15:18:49 +0000 I guess so. 45043 3 chuck 2011-02-03 01:49:58 +0000 This seems to be a duplicate/old issue, covered in CSS Issue #109: http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/issues/109 "ISSUE-109: CSSOM should define when 'scroll' and 'resize' events fire" I'm investigating feasibility of better-enabling Canvas elements to work with mangification AT, through the use of scroll and resize events and fallback content (including alternate canvas elements). 57771 4 cooper 2011-10-04 15:27:09 +0000 The HTML Accessibility Task Force requests that the priority of this bug be advanced to P1. The reason for this is the ability to resize content when zoom is triggered in the user agent is critical to giving people with low vision access to canvas content. 59742 5 cooper 2011-11-08 16:22:13 +0000 According to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Oct/0139.html this is a CSS WG bug. However, the product shown is WebAppsWG, with component CSSOM. If it's CSSOM, shouldn't it be in the CSS WG? Don't feel comfortable making the change myself, but also don't want the bug to get lost in the cracks. Can someone with knowledge ensure this is tagged correctly? 59746 6 annevk 2011-11-08 16:37:39 +0000 This product is fine as far as I am concerned. Changing it is a hassle. 59810 7 chuck 2011-11-10 00:33:31 +0000 (In reply to comment #6) > This product is fine as far as I am concerned. Changing it is a hassle. What's the hold-up on implementing this and closing out issue 109? 87641 8 zcorpan 2013-05-14 10:29:49 +0000 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/6659a40214ae