W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2007

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

From: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:31:53 -0600
To: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF469DE7F9.36B9D531-ON8625739A.005FF342-8625739A.00604E1A@us.ibm.com>

I object to having <canvas> in HTML 5. There is no vehicle to apply
accessibility semantics to the markup - unlike SVG.

Rich


Rich Schwerdtfeger
Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist
Chair, IBM Accessibility Architecture Review  Board
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/schwer


                                                                           
             Chris Wilson                                                  
             <Chris.Wilson@mic                                             
             rosoft.com>                                                To 
             Sent by:                  Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>,     
             public-html-reque         "public-html@w3.org"                
             st@w3.org                 <public-html@w3.org>                
                                                                        cc 
                                                                           
             11/16/2007 05:03                                      Subject 
             PM                        RE: SURVEY: Accept requirement for  
                                       immediate mode graphics a la        
                                       canvas element?                     
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           





Dan, I think Maciej's point is that the survey doesn't distinguish between:
"I want canvas in HTML5, and I believe it's already covered by the charter"
"I want canvas in HTML5, but we need to recharter to cover it"
"I don't want canvas in HTML5 (we should charter a different WG to do it)"
"I don't want canvas in HTML5 (go away)"

The latest survey still doesn't (particularly, the difference between the
first two is significant).

Maciej, does that echo your concern?

-Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-wg-announce-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-html-wg-announce-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dan Connolly
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 2:03 PM
To: public-html@w3.org
Cc: public-html-wg-announce
Subject: Re: SURVEY: Accept requirement for immediate mode graphics a la
canvas element?


On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 10:20 -0600, 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/

Several people said that including the possible charter
impact in this question was unhelpful; I'm persuaded,
so I moved it to a separate tactics survey, which also
discusses a possible supplementary tutorial document,
a task force, etc...

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tactics-gapi-canvas/

I may continue to tweak them today, so if the exact wording
matters to you, check again later in the week.

Perhaps it's best to consider all surveys subject to
change on the first day...

--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E








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

pic10903.gif
(image/gif attachment: pic10903.gif)

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

Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 17:33:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:09 GMT