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

Re: Canvas 2D API specification update

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:12:43 +0200
Message-ID: <4AE013FB.6010907@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Eliot Graff <eliotgra@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Frank Olivier <franko@microsoft.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> Is Microsoft considering a Canvas implementation in IE? I must admit to 
> having some discomfort with the spec being edited by the one implementor 
> that has *not* implemented Canvas so far. Good future stewardship of the 
> API requires having a stake in its success, and Microsoft's past 
> attitude towards Canvas has been one of hostility at worst and 
> indifference at best. It seems to me that this creates the potential for 
> significant conflict of interest.

[ speaking with my CSS WG co-chair hat off ]

Ah.

Because Hixie or his employer implemented all of the specs he edits?
Because Fantasai in the CSS WG has implemented all the specs she edits?
Because your own company is always clean wrt standardization, always
following up on proposals you make to WGs and in good standing in WGs?
Because the HTML WG has so many editors handy you can refuse help?
Because I never added features to specs that my parent company
(Netscape at that time) disagreed with but that were decided by
consensus in a W3C WG?
Come on...

I don't understand at all that position. If Microsoft expressed
in the past disinterest about canvas, I think Eliot's email is pretty
clear about their will to now actively contribute, at least from an
editorial perspective.

I'd like to understand how this will create a conflict of interest
significantly greater than having in the past a co-chairman of this WG
from Microsoft...
Apparently, the work they did on the document is strictly editorial, and
I'd like also to hear why this is could be harmful in _any_ way.

In summary, I respectfully but also strongly disagree with you. All I
have to say, and that's of course my personal opinion only, to Microsoft
is "welcome back onboard".

</Daniel>
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 08:13:20 UTC

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