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

Re: who would be interested in working with a Canvas object/2D API separate group

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:29:34 -0700
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <50DB0338-B191-49BA-A0B9-921C60D91C13@apple.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>

On Aug 13, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:

> People have expressed varying degrees of interest in working with a  
> Canvas object/2D immediate mode graphics API working group.

I believe the interest has been in a separate spec, not a separate  
working group. A few people are interested in a separate working  
group, but it seems to me most would prefer to keep the discussion  
here, at least for now.

> What's been stated is that at the time a vote to retain Canvas was  
> taken, no one was willing to step up to be editor of the first  
> draft, or willing to take the time to be in this group. That was the  
> main reason at the time to keep Canvas, the object, the API, in the  
> HTML 5 spec.
>
> This could be partially true. I'm willing to step up to be editor,  
> at least pro tem, for the first draft. I would also be willing to  
> submit alternative text for the HTML 5 specification to handle this  
> transition. Toby[1] already has, except for the issue of whether the  
> change could be informative or normative, because of the use of  
> ImageData with PostMessage.

[...]

> If it is true, and people aren't willing to step up to be part of  
> this new working group, then I'll drop any further discussion of  
> splitting the 2D API out of the HTML 5 specification, now and in the  
> future. If there is sufficient interest, though, then I think that  
> circumstance, and new information is such that this option could be  
> re-opened, and a new effort undertaken.

If you are willing to edit, I think you can start by producing a draft  
and submitting it to the HTML WG. Or if anyone else is willing to do  
so, they should go ahead. I'd say that should be the first step,  
before we decide whether it needs to be spun off to a separate Working  
Group. I think we'd need some confidence that the effort is making  
progress and will not be abandoned before we make HTML5 depend on it.  
Spinning up a Working Group takes considerable time and effort, so we  
shouldn't make it a blocker to progress.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 17:30:16 UTC

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