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

RE: Canvas 2D API specification update - defining the element or not

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:06:37 +0000
To: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, Martin Kliehm <martin.kliehm@namics.com>
CC: "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <267F18971244A34BA58D684E5EAA4E6F0441F541@TK5EX14MBXC141.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
>* Even if the LC->WD->LC thing didn't happen, the W3C Process seems to allow for the first HTML5 LC to say the canvas feature is "at risk" and then it could be removed (and added to a separate spec) before moving to PR. That would give time to develop accessibility solutions, before deciding if/how to best split canvas out of the HTML5 spec.

The W3C Process step that permits a WG to declare features as being "at risk" is the Call for Implementation (aka Candidate Recommendation) stage.  See:
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#cfi 

"In the Call for Implementations, the Working Group MAY identify specific features of the technical report as being "features at risk." General statements such as "We plan to remove any unimplemented feature" are not acceptable; the Working Group MUST precisely identify any features at risk. Thus, in response to a Call for Implementations, reviewers can indicate whether they would formally object to the removal of the identified features."

This part of the process does not directly apply to the Last Call Working Draft stage.  But there is no reason why the WG could not identify a feature in a Last Call WD for which they specifically wanted feedback to determine if the feature was fully developed.  

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
Received on Friday, 23 October 2009 13:07:20 UTC

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