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

Re: Canvas 2D API specification update

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:25:17 +0000 (UTC)
To: Eliot Graff <eliotgra@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Frank Olivier <franko@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0910220812080.29157@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Eliot Graff wrote:
> 
> At Microsoft, we agree with the sentiments expressed by Doug, Maciej, 
> and others about creating a separate Canvas 2D API specification. We are 
> prepared to offer editorial resources to aid in the completion of this 
> separate specification.

I'm a little concerned about this process introducing a significant number 
of editorial problems in the spec.

> Our updated version is published at 
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/canvas-api/canvas-2d-api.html

For example, from a _very_ brief look at the document (i.e. things I 
noticed in the first 60 seconds of looking at the draft):

* Element interface name is wrong (should be HTMLCanvasElement)

* Unclear definition of conformance classes -- is a host language a 
conformance class?

* We really should keep all the element-specific stuff in the HTML spec 
and the 2D API in its own spec, if we split it out at all.

* None of the recent fixes have made it through, e.g. the recent fix to 
define how shapes are drawn with respect to the globalCompositeOperation 
is not included.

* References to WebIDL have been lost.

* The composite operators have been reordered into an order that doesn't 
make much sense (alphabetical, it seems).


IF we're going to split out the 2D API -- and I'm not really sure if at 
this point that's something we should do, frankly -- then I would much 
rather we do it based on the text in the HTML5 spec now, and would much 
rather we have an editor who is able to give this the full-time attention 
that it needs.

However, I'm really not sure at this point that it even makes sense to 
extract the API anymore. The API intergrates pretty tightly with the rest 
of HTML, for example it refers to HTMLVideoElements, the HTML5 "structured 
clone" feature is defined in terms of canvas interfaces, and so on. There 
would have to be a two-way reference, which would be a maintenance 
nightmare, and which would just delay the progress of both documents.

What are the problems that we are trying to solve by splitting out the API 
at this point?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 08:12:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:09 UTC