This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 11329 - Browsers must generate resize event during a zoom.
Summary: Browsers must generate resize event during a zoom.
Alias: None
Product: CSS
Classification: Unclassified
Component: CSSOM (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC All
: P2 major
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Simon Pieters
QA Contact: public-webapps-bugzilla
Keywords: a11y, a11ytf, a11y_canvas
Depends on:
Reported: 2010-11-16 23:11 UTC by Rich Schwerdtfeger
Modified: 2013-08-08 13:26 UTC (History)
11 users (show)

See Also:


Description Rich Schwerdtfeger 2010-11-16 23:11:59 UTC
This is necessary for an author to make canvas rendering adjustments due to zooming levels changes resulting in revised logical DPI changes.
Comment 1 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2010-12-30 05:53:39 UTC
Anne, 'resize' events are a CSSOM issue, right?
Comment 2 Anne 2011-01-24 15:18:49 UTC
I guess so.
Comment 3 Charles Pritchard 2011-02-03 01:49:58 UTC
This seems to be a duplicate/old issue, covered in CSS Issue #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).
Comment 4 Michael Cooper 2011-10-04 15:27:09 UTC
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.
Comment 5 Michael Cooper 2011-11-08 16:22:13 UTC
According to 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?
Comment 6 Anne 2011-11-08 16:37:39 UTC
This product is fine as far as I am concerned. Changing it is a hassle.
Comment 7 Charles Pritchard 2011-11-10 00:33:31 UTC
(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?
Comment 8 Simon Pieters 2013-05-14 10:29:49 UTC