W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-wg-announce@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: SURVEY: Accept requirement for immediate mode graphics a la canvas element?

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:00:30 -0800
Cc: public-html-wg-announce <public-html-wg-announce@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3B0C04A5-2CF9-43F9-995E-2E1FEA2689C0@apple.com>
To: public-html@w3.org


On Nov 16, 2007, at 8:20 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:

>
> Please answer right away!
> You may update your response over the course of the week.
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/
>
>
> Do use cases such as games, shared whiteboards, and yahoo pipes and
> others in the ESW wiki motivate a requirement that HTML 5 provide an
> immediate mode graphics API and canvas element?
>
> This is a proposal to close ISSUE-15 immediate-mode-graphics.
>
> Note discussion 19 November where some WG participants consider this
> implicitly in the scope of our March 2007 charter under "Forms and
> common UI widgets such as progress bars, datagrids, menus, and other
> controls" but others would prefer to make it more explicit in the
> charter. If this question carries, Dan Connolly, Chris Wilson, an Mike
> Smith should seek review of a clarified charter per section 5.3
> Modification of an Activity of the W3C Process document.

Since some WG participants hold this opinion, why does the survey not  
allow you to vote that way?  As far as I can tell, the possible votes  
are:

- Yes, immediate mode graphics is justified, therefore, let's recharter.
- No, immediate mode graphics is not justified, let's remove it.

I would like to vote the position:

- Yes, immediate mode graphics is justified, and is already covered by  
the charter requirements, so let's not open the rechartering can of  
worms.

In particular, I think it is covered by the intersection of the  
charter deliverables for "forms and common UI widgets", "

For those who don't know, note that changing the charter in any way  
requires going through a full rechartering process. This has the  
potential to change anything whatsoever in the charter (including  
removing things currently in scope) and can potentially stop all work  
while it is happening. The last HTML WG charter process took, all  
told, over 6 months.

I think we should get to keep canvas (which everyone should have known  
about at the time we agreed to adopt HTML5 as the basis for review)  
without derailing the whole group through rechartering, and I would  
like to vote that way.

I encourage everyone to refuse to vote on this survey as it is  
currently put and I strongly object to the chairs on the phrasing of  
the question, particularly since I have brought up this very issue  
when the question was put the same way at the face to face meeting.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Friday, 16 November 2007 18:01:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 19 February 2014 13:57:50 UTC