W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: <canvas> and the 2D context API (was RE: Begin discussions for pushing Last Call into 2010)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:28:21 -0400
Message-ID: <4A835E25.60108@intertwingly.net>
To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
CC: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Adrian Bateman wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:37 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> I will also say that while I truly did not have an idea how the 
>>> current poll would end up (and even though there does appear to
>>> be a trend at the moment, I'm still not certain), I do have a
>>> strong intuition on what the consensus would be on canvas at the
>>> moment.
> 
>> The current working group may consider that the current charter can
>> be stretched to include Canvas, but I'm not sure others outside of
>> the group would agree. (Though I'm not sure that the working group
>> of today would necessarily vote the same -- the makeup of the group
>> is different. Views about the Canvas element are also different. )
> 
> My understanding is that the WG decision was that canvas was in scope
> for the working group. The mail documenting the decision [1]
> indicates that there was some support for the 2D context API being
> documented separately:
> 
> We also note support for splitting the immediate mode graphics API 
> out of the HTML 5 spec and inten to pursue that option by recruiting
> writing resources. 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tactics-gapi-canvas/results#xq3
> 
> I don't know whether having the <canvas> element defined in the HTML
> 5 spec but the graphics API in a separate document solves the
> accessibility issue at the root of this thread. I suspect there is
> some relationship since a different API would likely require
> different accessibility support.
> 
> Nonetheless, I think Microsoft would support that separation since,
> amongst other things, it would allow the graphics API to proceed in
> the longer term on a different rhythm to the HTML 5 spec itself.

Now that's a different matter.  I previously was reacting mainly to 
Shelley's assertion that it is out of scope[2].

If we agree that it is in scope, and if the discussion is about whether 
the existing spec language into one or possibly multiple documents, then 
that's a decision that hasn't been made yet, and I would hope that 
anybody who wanted to raise an issue along these lines would do so 
before Last Call, and ideally would have a discussion, concrete 
rationale, and possibly even a concrete proposal on how to do this.

> Cheers,
> 
> Adrian.
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Dec/0094.html

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0619.html
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 00:29:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:43 GMT