W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-canvas-api@w3.org > October to December 2014

Re: canvas, TPAC, and CR testing

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:07:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDCMr+S-KeYhOwPD3Q0eKWi1Tydt++1=P8aukWb1TgQMcg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net)" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org>, Canvas <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, "W3C WAI Protocols & Formats" <public-pfwg@w3.org>, Jay Munro <jaymunro@microsoft.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
wrote:

> Sam,
>
> At the last meeting we dicussed meeting times on Canvas at the face to
> face. This is proving to be problematic:
>
> 1. SVG, HTML, and PF all meet on the same 2 days at the face to face
> meeting
> 2. I am a member of all 3 working groups
> 3. PF has scheduled my time in group sessions with HTML, SVG, Digital
> Publishing, and CSS as well as ARIA.next the last day.
>
> I don't have any control over the scheduling of TPAC but since we never
> got around to scheduling exact times for things like Canvas until now I
> don't see any bandwidth for participating in an canvas discussion now. Mark
> will have time and will have changes to the canvas spec. based on
> implementations and will be able to bring those changes to the working
> group for Canvas 1.
>
> Mark has completed many of the test cases and testing on the test cases I
> specified. I am working with him on areas where there is confusion. Mark is
> now into the hit region testing and he is working on the scroll testing. He
> has been filing bugs on the browser manufacturers. So, a lot of progress
> has been made. I envision a quick jump back to last call and then a rapid
> pass through CR assuming implementation testing continues to go the way it
> has - very well.
>
> It would be nice if there was a way to expedite this round trip like HTML
> has done. Is that possible?
>
Hi Rich,
are you envisioning substantive changes to the spec or is this just about
clarifying existing features? If it is the latter, we can stay in CR.
Received on Tuesday, 21 October 2014 23:07:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:57 UTC