W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-canvas-api@w3.org > April to June 2013

Fwd: [ime-api] Followups from April f2f discussions

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 10:43:37 -0700
Message-ID: <51A8E149.2090408@jumis.com>
To: Canvas <public-canvas-api@w3.org>
FYI: Canvas examples in the IME API are being removed.


-Charles


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[ime-api] Followups from April f2f discussions
Resent-Date: 	Fri, 31 May 2013 11:37:26 +0000
Resent-From: 	public-webapps@w3.org
Date: 	Fri, 31 May 2013 07:36:52 -0400
From: 	Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
To: 	"Hironori Bono (坊野 博典)" <hbono@google.com>, Kenji Baheux 
<kenjibaheux@google.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <Mike@w3.org>, "Takayoshi 
Kochi (河内 隆仁)" <kochi@google.com>, public-webapps 
<public-webapps@w3.org>



Hi Mike, All,

During WebApps' April 25 discussion about IME API ([Minutes]), Mike
agreed to a couple of actions for the ime-api spec:

* ACTION-690 - Ask the IME Editors to remove Canvas examples (e.g.
images) [on Michael[tm] Smith - due 2013-05-02].

* ACTION-691 - Smith to take back PFWG feedback to the IME API editor
(Kochi) and propose we excise the mentions of DOM-based editor use-case
in the use-case document, and the specific mentions of <canvas> in the
actual spec [on Michael[tm] Smith - due 2013-05-02].

It appears 690 has been addressed but I'm not entirely sure of 691.
Regardless, please update Tracker accordingly
<https://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/users/39522>.

Also, did the group decide to not support a webpage creating their own
IME, at least not for v1?

Lastly, I would appreciate it, if the Editors would please update the
latest ED [ED] so it has a proper ToC, References, and such.

-Thanks, AB

[Mins] <http://www.w3.org/2013/04/25-webapps-minutes.html#item12>
[ED] <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ime-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.html>
Received on Friday, 31 May 2013 17:44:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:55 UTC