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

RE: News from TPac

From: Jay Munro <jaymunro@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 17:26:34 +0000
To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>
Message-ID: <fef7889c521a47f1b54c64626de8832f@BY2PR03MB521.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
It would be great to do that. This was an option I heard came up at TPAC and I wanted to hear more. The idea of a simple add on might take less time, but I'd rather see the full spec get through in a few months. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@w3.org] 
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2013 2:02 AM
To: Edward O'Connor; public-canvas-api@w3.org
Subject: Re: News from TPac

Hi all,

On 06/12/2013 01:09 , Edward O'Connor wrote:
> I don't understand why L2 is necessarily a big spec that will take a 
> long time. Why not envision an L2 which is exactly the same as the 
> "extension (mini) spec" you have in mind? Features that are unrelated 
> can wait until L3. The labels we give these specs don't mean anything, 
> don't require us to spend more or less time on them, and don't imply 
> anything about taking a few months v. a few years to work on them.

What Ted said. There is nothing that says that shipping has to be a heavy process. We can ship iterations of Recommendations (or CRs, or
whatever) with just the sort of small delta you mention. Nothing wrong with having multiple releases a year if they work.

--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 17:27:03 UTC

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