W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > August 2012

Re: CfC: Close ISSUE-201: canvas-fallback by Amicable Resolution

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:54:10 -0400
Message-ID: <50350EB2.4030400@intertwingly.net>
To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
CC: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On 08/22/2012 12:23 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> On 8/22/2012 6:07 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On 08/02/2012 04:06 PM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> In regards to the text in question I am prepared to withdraw my change
>>> proposal in favour of Teds.
>>
>> This leaves only one active Change Proposal on this issue:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/index.php?title=User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-201&oldid=13386
>>
>> At the current time, the chairs are issuing a call for consensus on
>> this proposal.  If anybody would like to raise an objection during
>> this time, we will require them to accompany their objection with a
>> concrete and complete change proposal.
>>
>> If no objections are raised to this call by August 30th, 2012, we will
>> direct the editors to make the proposed change, and will only consider
>> subsequently reopening this issue based on new information and a
>> complete change proposal based on the spec's contents as it exists
>> after this change is applied.
>
> The "Eoconnor" CP is a vast departure from the spec as it existed prior
> and as it is implemented.
> I don't believe one week is enough time to complete and submit a
> concrete counter-proposal.

Some relevant context:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jan/0080.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0267.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0068.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0062.html

The chairs are not likely to grant an unbounded request for additional time.

> Further, the Canvas group just gained new editors; it has and will take
> them time to catch up on the discussion.
>
> We seem to have general consensus on many of the features: supporting
> SVG path d; dashed lines, reporting the offset of text baseline
> and supporting the binding of a hit region to a an element within the
> sub-tree.
>
> We do not have consensus about the new "Path" object, unbacked hit
> regions nor the footprint of the text baseline reporting methods.
> I intend a simple, incremental change to the existing Canvas
> specification that more closely matches the design of Canvas
> implementations and consumers.
>
> -Charles

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 16:54:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 22 August 2012 16:54:48 GMT