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

Re: Canvas API Editors

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:11:57 -0400
Message-ID: <4A89FFDD.4010607@w3.org>
To: public-canvas-api@w3.org
CC: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Hi, Shelley-

Shelley Powers wrote (on 8/17/09 6:50 PM):
>
> A little surprised that you responded to this email. This email was a
> response specifically to Maciej because of an exchange we had, and I
> had posted it in www-archives, not public-html.

No, this particular one was on public-html... the thread diverged later, 
I think.


>  That's cool that you
> responded to it, but you seem to have misunderstood the point I was
> trying to make to Maciej.

Well, honestly, it had the hooks for me to draw you in to possibly 
editing, and a couple opportunities for drive-by jokes, so I jumped on it.


> I am currently tech editing two books, writing a third for O'Reilly
> that's probably going to be close to 700 pages in length, providing
> support for my other 6 six books currently in print, and trying to get
> two others ready for self-publication--all work I have to do to pay
> the bills.

Understood.  Good luck with your Grown-Up Job... it's something we all 
have to do, so I appreciate the volunteer work that everyone does in W3C 
when they have the time.


>I could take the time to split the text out, but the work
> was going to have to be worked into my schedule, and therefore
> probably slower than most folks in this list like.
>
> I'm glad that you did the split, and I appreciate your help and your
> willingness to take the time to help enable this process.

My pleasure.  I think it's often too much of a burden on people who want 
to contribute, but who have limited time, so I hope this ameliorates that.


> I don't really agree that the API should be under the ownership of the
> HTML WG,

I don't think it matters much where, organizationally, the spec gets 
done within W3C, but it matters a great deal from an IP commitment 
perspective, and maybe even from a implementer-incentive perspective. 
Certain groups are higher-profile, and more likely to get the attention 
of vendors.  (I do admit that the OCD part of me thinks it should be the 
Graphics activity, but that's just bookshelving.)


>but splitting it out into a spin off is probably OK. I'm not
> quite sure how these spin-offs work, especially from a deadline
> perspective.

In this instance, I'm not certain myself.  I'd expect that in order for 
it to be included in HTML5, it will still need an aggressive schedule, 
without which it might lose relevance... it might just get shipped in 
HTML5 anyway, if we don't resolve the outstanding issues quickly.  I 
don't want it to slow down HTML5, and I don't think anyone else does either.


> I agree with your absorption of the interface element into the
> specification. I'll most likely address that separately in the thread.

Thanks.  I'm not totally convinced of it myself, but it seemed like a 
better starting position than finding out we needed to add it later. 
Frankly, the spec would seems incomplete without that.  We'll see how it 
plays out.

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 01:12:08 GMT

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