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: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:28:56 -0500
Message-ID: <4A845B68.70104@burningbird.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
What makes you think I haven't been doing any kind of edits, to match 
any of the criticisms I've made[1]. I don't whip things out half-assed. 
I won't put anything online until I know I've gone through it and made 
sure all the i's are dotted, the t's crossed. It doesn't have to be 
bullet proof, but I would hope it could withstand at least a little 
shaking.

I realize that others may be faster, and that's cool. I admire people 
who can put together a spec document quick as an eye blink. I can't. So 
don't assume because I haven't whipped anything out that I'm not making 
edits to the copy of the HTML 5 document I downloaded.

Frankly, I'm not so sanguine about the whole "create alternative spec 
text and submit it for discussion", as others seem to be. I'll wait and 
see what happens with Manu's spec text, but how the third poll question 
is worded seems to make it especially difficult for Manu's work to 
succeed. I'm assuming the same fate rests with other efforts, too. But 
that's just me, others could be more positive about the approach.

But this isn't about me, or about who is tweaking the text. People have 
expressed interest in being involved in this effort. I want to see if 
this interest still exists. If not, then I won't bring up this issue 
again to this group. I will still do the edits, because I want to show 
what my changes would look like, for my own sense of accomplishment. I 
won't dump them on the group, though. Frankly, I'll most likely just 
quit, and do my own thing in my own space. I have a couple of raised 
issues, but I have no concerns that one at least will find a new owner 
(Issue 76). And chances are, no one is interested in the other (Issue 
77), anyway, and it can just be closed.

Believe it or not, I have no interest in wasting the group's time.

Shelley

[1] http://realtech.burningbird.net/html5-story-progress
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 18:29:39 GMT

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