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

Re: Request for clarification on HTML 5 publication status (ISSUE-19)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:06:10 -0600
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1196294770.7560.236.camel@pav>

On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 11:07 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 17:21 -0800, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
[...]
> I encouraged the non-responders to give this information in public,
> but unless and until they choose to do so, I'm not at liberty to say.

After thinking about it a bit, I realize that
several of the members that I contacted _have_
said, in public, things that are relevant to
whether the HTML 5 spec should be published
as a W3C working draft given our current charter:

IBM:
  no: an immediate mode graphics API and canvas element would clearly
  be a good thing; my only issue is the scope question, which
  the separate survey doesn't adequately address in my opinion.
  Please treat this answer as if it were "yes, but only if the
  charter was modified first".
  -- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/results

Nokia:
  yes: The main rationale behind HTML5 is Rich Web Applications, and
  vector graphics play a major role in this application scope. 

  My only major concern about the canvas solution to this requirement
  is performance in mobile platforms. The main reason is
  using ECMAScript in the drawing loop. 

  Hopefully the next version ECMAScript will enable better
  performing implementations (although the API should be
  checked wheather it can be typed). On the other hand, SVG has not
  been proven to perform any better in real world applications.
  -- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/results

And of course, this was shared with the WG on 10 November:

Microsoft:
  ChrisW: I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, I'm saying it's not in
  our charter.
  ... Our lawyers when reviewing this document wouldn't have checked
  for graphics patents
 -- http://www.w3.org/2007/11/10-html-wg-minutes.html#item04



> > 1) Which non-responders are not ok to publish? What are their
> specific  
> > objections and how can they be addressed?

Before we get to the business of addressing objections to publishing,
we have to establish a critical mass of support for publishing.
That's where Chris and I made the mistake. When I put the question
on 2 November, I assumed that members such as Nokia and IBM and
Microsoft were aware of the patent policy implications of
publishing current HTML 5 specs under our current charter, and
Chris assumed that Microsoft's patent review included the
immediate mode graphics stuff. We're doing our level best,
but we're juggling a lot of balls and we dropped a few this time.

I'm sorry I raised expectations about publishing the HTML 5
spec before a critical mass of the WG was really ready.

I trust we'll be ready before too much longer.

Of course, it would be easier to publish the spec right
away if the spec took a much more conservative position on
issues such as videoaudio, immediate-mode-graphics, and
offline-applications-sql.
 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/products/2

But perhaps those are worth the wait.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 00:06:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:51 UTC