W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-canvas-api@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Request to re-open issue 131

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 19:46:32 -0800
Message-ID: <4EE2D618.8060702@jumis.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, dbolter@mozilla.com, franko@microsoft.com, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, public-canvas-api@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org
On 12/9/11 7:25 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 12/09/2011 05:42 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>> I see Ian replaced the entire Canvas 2D API spec. without a formal 
>> proposal:
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/
> Should a formal proposal not be forthcoming, and should you be able to 
> obtain testimonials from at least two major implementors that that 
> they would be willing to implement your proposal should it be adopted, 
> then you have nothing to worry about.  If you need to modify your 
> Change Proposal(s) in order to obtain these testimonials, you have the 
> opportunity to do so.  We've not established a deadline yet for this, 
> but the earliest deadline we would impose would be late January by 
> this point.  It could possibly even be later.

I'm not intimately familiar with W3C processes -- but I must ask -- why 
do you claim this action is "nothing to worry about"? The latest 
revision reverts  changes made by the chair decision "applied no later 
than the end of day on the Thu 12th of May [2011]".

The proposal Richard has been floating recently simply covers 
TextMetrics and has little-to-nothing to do with the chair decision from 
May. It was requested that the issue remain separate from the May action 
by the chairs.

I'm thoroughly confused as to what the subject is, when you are 
referring to "your proposal". What weight or authority does the decision 
from May have? The patch was applied by W3C staff as the editor would 
not apply it himself. The editor recently reverted the change, and 
neither the chairs nor editor have provided an explanation.

>> Could you please clarify how this is consistent with the HTML working
>> groups decision policy or with the process you refer to below?
> There exists a document in CVS with Ian's name on it with the 
> following text prominently in the frontmatter:
>     The publication of this document by the W3C as a W3C Working Draft
>     does not imply that all of the participants in the W3C HTML working
>     group endorse the contents of the specification. Indeed, for any
>     section of the specification, one can usually find many members of
>     the working group or of the W3C as a whole who object strongly to
>     the current text, the existence of the section at all, or the idea
>     that the working group should even spend time discussing the
>     concept of that section.
> If you would like to create a parallel document in CVS with your name 
> on it and the same disclaimer, we will help you do that.  But I will 
> state that there really is no need to do that.  Your Change Proposals 
> are sufficient.
> I already stated why the Chairs elected to take this action.  If you 
> have a problem with this, I encourage you to take this up with PLH. 
> Mike Smith will assist you in this effort should you decide to go this 
> route.
> Obviously, I would encourage you to focus on obtaining implementer 
> testimonials instead of taking that path, but the choice is yours.

I think we all understand that the existence of an implemented API 
across two independent implementations is an often used and accepted 
measure for writing the standard. Many implementers are hesitant to put 
in such implementations in relation to accessibility until there's some 
guidance from the w3c. We seem to be in a catch-22 here.

Further, the editor of the HTML specification has repeatedly rejected 
use cases put forward regarding Canvas accessibility.

>> I also noticed Ian went into numerous related defects and added requests
>> for use cases, such as: 
>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13578
>> We have on numerous occasions provided information on things like
>> providing the bounds of an object such as Frank Olivier presented at
>> TPAC. Please refer to the use cases minuted at the TPAC discussion.
> I'm pleased to see that things are progressing again.  As to Ian's 
> request: since you state that the data is already publicly available, 
> I encourage you to provide pointers to that data.

I've repeatedly written summaries on this list, and will continue to 
point to that data. There is a summary in the bug report itself, in 
fact, that bug report was simply issued based on a lengthy summary of 
use cases and arguments against those cases.

> In any case, if for any reason these bugs aren't resolved to your 
> satisfaction by December 31st 2011[1], you will have the opportunity 
> to escalate the bugs and propose your own resolutions in the form of 
> concrete Change Proposals.

They've been escalated as far as I'm aware.

The HTML editor continues to assert that interactive Canvas 
accessibility is not an issue as Canvas should not be used for 
interactive components, beyond an arbitrary set of button, checkbox and 
radio. This is reflected on the whatwg specification.

We're in a bit of a bind here.

I'm sure vendors will move forward, regardless, as they have real-world 
commitments to accessibility. The chairs previously put forward a 
decision which has now been circumvented by the HTML editor. It seems 
odd to submit Change Proposals under such circumstances. Why go through 
the process if it holds no authority?

>> I am leaving for vacation in an hour and will be unavailable for mostly
>> through the end of the year. I look forward to your reply.
> Unfortunately, I wasn't around to respond within the hour.  Hopefully 
> you will see this when you return.


Tell you what, Sam Ruby, I'll keep an eye on this thread while Richard 
is on vacation.

If you feel it worth your time to respond, here I'll be.

Meanwhile, I will comply with Ian Hickson's request, posting links to 
the various use cases discussed on this list over the past two years.

Received on Saturday, 10 December 2011 03:46:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:54 UTC