6 ms·
This could have a great utility, but for me HTML in canvas in HTML feels so cursed. To make it make sense in my opinion canvas should already be a first class
by ha1zum 1y ago
This could have a great utility, but for me HTML in canvas in HTML feels so cursed.
To make it make sense in my opinion canvas should already be a first class format for web browsers, so it doesn't have to be inside a HTML.
Then we would have a choice of HTML-first page with canvas elements in it, or a canvas-first page with HTML elements in it.
But what do I know.
- Liron 1y agoWhat if you want an HTML-first page with a canvas in it, but then you realize you want some layout/styling for the text within the canvas? Seems unnecessary to propagate that situation up to the type of top-level page.
- thrance 1y agoAnd then what if you realize you need a canvas-in-the-html-in-the-canvas? It's endless. Canvas-first makes sense, it's basically how it works everywhere outside of the web. Start with the smallest abstractions and build on them (html on canvas) rather than leave escape hatches to your big abstractions because they fail to cover every use cases (canvas in html).
- sitkack 1y agoIf you support the DOM and hitscan, then it doesn't matter. You can red pill Ouroboros yourself all day and not care. Every element a canvas, every raindrop an ocean.
- socalgal2 1y agocanvas first sites suck. They can't use any system services as it would all be a privacy issue. They can't use the system dictionary for correction since to do so they'd need the contents of the dictionary or at least a way to query user customized corrections. Similarly they can't offer the system level accessibility but end up having to roll their own in which case, every app that uses canvas has a completely different UI.
- nemomarx 1y agoThat's basically how flash sites worked, and those were pretty common?
- desiderantes 1y agoThey said that those kind of sites sucked. Common or not.
- yjftsjthsd-h 1y agoYes, and Flash sites had severe usability issues.
- jonplackett 1y agoI think you invented Flash, though saying that embedding flash in harm as also a pain!
- 38 1y ago[dead]
- bapak 1y agoI don't see a problem with what you're saying at all. For reference, you can already have HTML in SVG in HTML in SVG. If you have a canvas-first page, where do you store the title? Right, in <title>, so <!doctype html> <title>My canvas site</title> <canvas style="fill all"> In reality they should really just allow content in the canvas element and call it a day: <canvas type="html"> <h1>Canvassing</h1> </canvas>
- chii 1y agobut then what's the point of the canvas here? Unless if it was possible to mix and match canvas painting operations seamlessly with the declared elements...
- koolala 1y agoOpening it in WebXR!
- bapak 1y agoThis post is titled HTML-in-Canvas, so you can find the point in the link. A lot of people just want the freedom of canvas rendering/shading and the flexibility of HTML/CSS. Current options may force you to create a layout engine from scratch for example.
- ha1zum 1y ago> you can already have HTML in SVG in HTML in SVG It's kind of different because SVG and HTML are both XML-like text-based format, doesn't feel that wrong to mix them together. Unlike with canvas..
- koolala 1y agoOh god that canvas h1 code looks so sexy. Imagine if a canvas could dynamically resize too.
- bornfreddy 1y agoYes - and maybe you could call it something else, for example... div? ;-)
- lenkite 1y agoWell, folks said NO to WASM DOM Access. So it was inevitable that this would happen.
- 8n4vidtmkvmk 1y agoWait, is that never going to happen? I was so excited when WASM was first announced, but then lack of DOM access killed it for me. It was supposed to allow us to use any language instead of just JS.
- flohofwoe 1y agoYou can access the DOM from WASM just fine, you just have to go through a JS shim because the DOM is a Javascript API (just like WebGL, WebGPU, WebAudio and any other API available in browsers). In most DOM access libraries (like https://github.com/web-dom/web-dom https://github.com/web-dom/web-dom) this Javascript shim exists but is completely invisible to the library user (e.g. it looks and feels as if WASM would have direct DOM access). Why this topic is always brought up I really have no idea, at this point it feels like trolling attempts because from a technical point of view 'direct DOM access from WASM" simply doesn't make a lot of sense. Accessing web APIs from WASM is an FFI scenario, no matter how you look at it.
- lenkite 1y agoActually DOM implementations are all in C++ and DOM interfaces are described in WebIDL. So direct DOM access from WASM is indeed possible if browser vendors chose to open the same. Access via a JS shim is just utterly destroying performance - orders of magnitude worse than mere FFI - and all the trolling attempts are the one pretending otherwise.
- dfabulich 1y agoBrowser vendors can't simply "choose" to open direct DOM access to WASM. When defining standardized DOM APIs in WebIDL, WebIDL assumes that you can use JavaScript strings, JavaScript objects + properties, JavaScript Exceptions, JavaScript Promises, JavaScript garbage collection, and on and on and on. Almost all of the specification of WebIDL itself is about the dozens of types that it assumes the platform already provides. https://webidl.spec.whatwg.org/ https://webidl.spec.whatwg.org/ WebAssembly doesn’t have any of those things. As a low-level VM, it supports only modules, functions, bytes, numbers (32-bit and 64-bit integers and floats), arrays (called “tables”), and opaque pointers (“reference types”). No one has ever standardized a DOM API for low-level languages. You’d presumably need to start by defining a new low-level WebIDL design language just to define a low-level DOM API. Defining WebIDL itself has taken decades. Today, the browser vendors aren’t convinced that a new low-level DOM API is worth their time. It’s better to make existing JS web apps faster than it is to begin a multi-year (multi-decade?) project to make a new thing possible that could be better in the long run.