W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Bug 11239

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:19:23 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTinP8M0EQmHfQ3i=Bfo4747FagWxxA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jonas,
>
> On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:46 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>>
>> For what it's worth. I don't see that we'd implement this function at
>> all in firefox. For a few reasons:
>>
>> 1. I don't want people to write text editors using canvas. They are
>> bound to get a lot of things resulting in worse user experience for
>> users. *Especially* for users that use AT.
>> 2. It's not worth the engineering time needed. Weeding through the
>> various platform APIs on which firefox runs to try to get at this
>> information is non-trivial. The time could be spent on features that
>> help users more.
>> 3. It's in fact actively harmful for users since it increases
>> fingerprintability. We're going through great pains to reduce
>> fingerprintability, adding features that go the other way is not
>> something we'd take lightly.
>>
>> So I'd prefer that the feature was just removed. If it isn't, and we
>> for some reason decide that we want to claim to implement this
>> function (such as it appearing in a high-profile test suite), we'd
>> likely just make it return 500ms.
>
> I wish this feedback had been given in the survey. No one made a "won't implement this" claim or an argument about fingerprintability. If you do want this aspect of the decision reconsidered, I suggest collecting any additional information you have and submitting a reopen request.

Sorry Maciej, I simply don't have time to follow all the polls going
on in the WG and try to focus on areas where I feel I can be more
useful. Canvas accessibility is not one that I've had time to research
and thus I mostly stay out of it.

I looked at the decision policy document for how to take action after
a WG decision has been made. Unfortunately I only see steps for making
a formal objection, no steps for providing new information.

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but what are the formal steps
for reopening a WG decision using new information rather than a formal
objection? Do I wait for the bug to be closed (and presumably the
changes made to the spec), and then reopen the bug? Or do I simply
send a new email to the list including the ISSUE number (once I find
it) in the subject and put the new information in it?

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 29 April 2011 00:20:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:24 UTC