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

Re: News from TPac

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:32:42 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDAuTbpwmX74ne7vb-7b1m2q9m1u56jecR=5cJb7PxhmXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Cc: Jay Munro <jaymunro@microsoft.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>
You can find Dominic's feedback on this mailing list and the WhatWG one.
Ryosuke's feedback is on webkit-dev (as a reaction to me trying to patch
WebKit). He followed up on WhatWG and was also present at TPAC.

The feedback from a11y was privately during TPAC.


On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:

> Are any details about these concerns on the a11y Apis going to be posted
> online?
>
>
>
> -Charles
>
> On Dec 6, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My biggest fear is that regardless of how quickly we can fix the focus
> ring bugs, people from either side will keep stalling the process.
>
> Dominic from Google has expressed doubts and Ryosuke from Apple was very
> skeptical about the general API.
> In addition, someone from the A11Y team told me that they don't like the
> focus rings and want to redesign everything.
>
> Given this, I'd rather work on it separately so we're not in the same
> situation 4 months from now.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Jay Munro <jaymunro@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 19:33:10 UTC

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