W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-canvas-api@w3.org > July to September 2009

Canvas API Editors (was: who would be interested in working with a Canvas object/2D API separate group)

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:31:20 -0400
Message-ID: <4A89CC28.4070907@w3.org>
To: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, public-canvas-api@w3.org
Hi, Shelley-

Shelley Powers wrote (on 8/13/09 2:28 PM):
>
> What makes you think I haven't been doing any kind of edits, to match
> any of the criticisms I've made[1]. I don't whip things out half-assed.

Luckily, I do. :)


> I won't put anything online until I know I've gone through it and made
> sure all the i's are dotted, the t's crossed. It doesn't have to be
> bullet proof, but I would hope it could withstand at least a little
> shaking.

I used a standard font-family, so I'm assuming all the (lowercase) i's 
are dotted and the t's are crossed.  (Sorry, saw an opportunity for a 
joke there.)


> I realize that others may be faster, and that's cool. I admire people
> who can put together a spec document quick as an eye blink. I can't.

It wasn't quite an eyeblink, but I harvested the fruits of my misspent 
adulthood putting stuff into W3C-spec format, so I hope that this serves 
as an easier template for you (and other potential committed editors) to 
make incremental changes to the Canvas 2D API spec, rather than the more 
daunting HTML5 spec as a whole.


> So don't assume because I haven't whipped anything out that I'm not
> making edits to the copy of the HTML 5 document I downloaded.

I would love to see some or all of your edits folded into this split-out 
draft.  Personally, I would prefer to have a little friendly discussion 
about them first, just to make sure we aren't doing an end-run around 
the consensus of opinion in the HTML WG (particularly the implementers 
who would have to reify the spec), but I'm quite happy to have you edit 
it, or to fold in any edits myself if anyone doesn't want to take the 
time or trouble to do it.


> Frankly, I'm not so sanguine about the whole "create alternative spec
> text and submit it for discussion", as others seem to be. I'll wait and
> see what happens with Manu's spec text, but how the third poll question
> is worded seems to make it especially difficult for Manu's work to
> succeed. I'm assuming the same fate rests with other efforts, too. But
> that's just me, others could be more positive about the approach.

I have mixed feelings about Sam's approach as well, but I hope for the 
best.  However, the Canvas 2D API spec is not so much intended as an 
alternate, competing spec, but rather as a supplementary spin-off, like 
Web Storage, Web Workers, et al.  As such, it would not be a competing 
choice between drafts, and there shouldn't be any confusion which spec 
is definitive for the Canvas 2D API functionality.

That said, I don't know if this will ultimately be published as its own 
spec, folded back into HTML5, or abandoned.  That's up to the HTML WG.

I hope we are realistic about this approach... if we don't get 
commitment to implement what the spec says, then the effort goes 
nowhere.  Despite his statements against consensus, Ian has gotten 
consensus from at least one constituency: the browser vendors.  We need 
to maintain and build upon that consensus in order to keep the good will 
of all parties toward making Canvas accessible, useful, and successful.

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Monday, 17 August 2009 21:31:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 August 2009 21:31:31 GMT