Re: Canvas 1.0

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@google.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@google.com>wrote:
>>
>>> On a separate note, I'm still uncomfortable with the fact that
>>> addHitRegion was written, discussed, and developed on the whatwg list, but
>>> this group has essentially forked it.
>>>
>>
>> How was it forked?
>> The only change to hit regions was to allow any element for fallback
>> content. This went through the proper channels at the HTML WG and everyone
>> (including you) argued for it.
>>
>
> On that particular note I'm trying my best to bring the whatwg and w3c
> proposals closer together at least.
>
> The idea of a "minimal subset" of addHitRegion, for example - if we're
> going to actually pick just a subset of the original proposal to spec in
> canvas 1.0 and implement, I think Ian and others on whatwg should be part
> of that discussion.
>

Ian has not shown an interest in reducing an API and then expanding it
again once the subset is implemented. (ie see all the interfaces for Path
and Canvas workers).
The W3C version of canvas is a subset of the WhatWG one because we don't
include the APIs that are not implemented. It seems reasonable to do the
same for hit regions.

That being said, I was in favor of including all of hit region but mark it
as at-risk. Once we then go to CR, we can strip it down to what is
implemented.