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 21:28:28 -0400
Message-ID: <4A836C3C.9090607@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
CC: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Shelley Powers wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> 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].
>>
> 
> I don't see how I was unclear. I have been quite upfront about where I 
> stand on this issue [1]. The only thing that's changed is others have 
> entered the discussion. If others have brought in a new level of 
> clarification, great. Speaking of which...
> 
>> 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
>>
> 
> Adrian, thank you, yes, I did mean the API, not the Canvas element 
> directly. I don't necessarily agree with Sam that the API is within 
> scope of the Charter for this group, but I'm more interested in results 
> than mechanisms, and procedures.

That's the part that is potentially a Formal Objection.  I'm pleased to 
hear that you are less interested in that part.

> If we were to split the API into a separate document, could it progress 
> at a different pace than the main HTML 5 specification? Could it also 
> have a different editor or set of editors? Not to exclude Ian, but he 
> seemed amenable to this being managed separately in the earlier survey:
> 
> "The actual 2D graphics context APIs probably should be split out on the 
> long term, like many other parts of the spec. On the short term, if 
> anyone actually is willing to edit this as a separate spec, there are 
> much higher priority items that need splitting out and editing, and I 
> would strongly recommend they work on that instead (like setTimeout and 
> the Alternative Stylesheets OM). I would be very happy to work closely 
> with people on doing such work. The WebAPI working group would also be a 
> good forum for such work.
> 
> (Note though that even if we take out the 2D graphics context, the 
> element still belongs in the HTML spec, as it's part of the language. So 
> technically "<canvas>" still would be in the spec; just the graphics 
> context API would be taken out. One could argue that that would lead to 
> the spec being overly confusing to implementors, who generally prefer 
> things in one place to implement them, as it leads to fewer "cracks 
> between the specs".)"
> 
> Now, I do agree that the Canvas _element_ belongs in the HTML 
> specification, but the API should be split out. Doing so would also work 
> in well with the ongoing effort to incorporate accessibility.

This part is potentially an Issue.  Progress on resolving an issue will 
be tracked through Action Items.  Action Items require a task 
description, an owner and a date.  Beyond that, I don't believe I can 
improve upon Maciej's response, so I will simply link to it:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0632.html

> Shelley
> 
> [1] http://realtech.burningbird.net/separating-canvas-new-specification
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 01:29:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:50 UTC