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

Re: The Canvas 2D API split

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:10:01 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271001111110s18355171ncc6cded7f480e39f@mail.gmail.com>
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 GMT

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