- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:10:01 -0600
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > 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. > I'm assuming you mean the Canvas 2D API, not "canvas". No, I don't think I'll point people to the group at this time. > - Sam Ruby >
Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 19:10:36 UTC