W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: The Canvas 2D API split

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:53:49 -0500
Message-ID: <4B4B73BD.7070506@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
CC: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Shelley Powers wrote:
>>
>> On the other hand, forming a Canvas Task Force within the HTML WG could be a
>> productive compromise, and would allow for more focused discussions within
>> that TF.  This is a very lightweight process... it does not require any
>> approval from the AC or W3M or W3C Team, and only a short charter; it can be
>> set up by the Chairs of the HTML WG, if they so desire (I'm happy to help
>> with that, if they wish to do so).  We already have a Canvas mailing list,
>> public-canvas-api, that can be reused.
> 
> I am not as familiar with the workings of the W3C, or the various
> levels of groupings. I am assuming that the Canvas Task Force is
> somewhat equivalent to the Accessibility Task Force? Would the Canvas
> Task Force have decision power over Canvas, or does every decision
> have to come back to this group?

Task Force decisions (including ones made in the Accessibility Task 
Force) have to come back to the group.

My continued preference is that we focus on solving tangible problems. 
Like Maciej, I believe that the decision for including Canvas in this 
working group was already made (long before any of the current chairs 
became chairs, in fact).

I suggest that those that wish to work on Canvas do so.  If and when 
they hit a specific problem that an organization change of any sort 
would address, lets discuss proposals to address that need at that time.

>> The SVG WG believes that splitting the Canvas API out is a positive step
>> that will make it easier to reference, reuse, and independently evolve.  We
>> are quite happy to reference the Canvas API spec no matter who edits it or
>> what group produces it (assuming it meets our needs).
>>
>>> Though I agree with splitting the 2D API out of the HTML document, I
>>> don't believe the split should be impulsive, and without review and
>>> careful consideration. Or that we allow this seeming disconnect
>>> between the past effort and this week's effort to continue.
>> That seems like a reasonable stance.  I am happy to join in discussions of a
>> reconciliation and merger of the specs.  At the same time, let's not inject
>> too much overhead into the process; there seems to be general agreement
>> (Even among the editors) that a separate Canvas API spec is good, let's
>> start from a position of that agreement, and progress from there.
> 
> As long as there is a way of tracking the results.
> 
> If we can no longer use the Issue Tracker in order to ensure that
> tasks are assigned, with specific deadlines to meet those tasks, what
> do we use?

It is not a matter of "no longer".  We have action items for transient 
tasks.  Issue tracker for issues.  And bugzilla for bugs.

> Right now, if I'm going to write about the Canvas 2D API, I have no
> web page I can link as the definitive resource on the topic. That's
> OK, momentarily, but how do we ensure this state doesn't continue
> indefinitely?

At the present time, you can link to the following:

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/

If there is a decision to split out canvas, it will be noted there at 
that time.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 18:54:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:57 GMT