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

Re: News from TPac

From: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 15:12:37 -0600
To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Cc: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, Jay Munro <jaymunro@microsoft.com>, "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>, "Cynthia Shelly" <cyns@microsoft.com>, janina@rednote.net, jbrewer@w3.org, "Philippe Le Hégaret" <plh@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFB8CCA51C.6596F20A-ON86257C39.00740396-86257C39.007482BF@us.ibm.com>

Hi Charles,

Yes. These defects were filed by Philippe as representative of the issues
from the browser vendors:

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23978 through
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23987

I included others on cc so that they know to follow the canvas api
discussion list.

Cheers,

Rich



Rich Schwerdtfeger



From:	Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
To:	Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.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>
Date:	12/06/2013 01:25 PM
Subject:	Re: News from TPac



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







graycol.gif
(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 21:13:13 UTC

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