- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 17:52:19 -0700
- To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Cc: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, "E.J. Zufelt" <everett@zufelt.ca>, Paul Bakaus <pbakaus@zynga.com>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, "david.bolter@gmail.com" <david.bolter@gmail.com>, Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, "Mike@w3.org" <Mike@w3.org>, "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote: > I think your reply lacks substance. > > Corporations are -have already- more likely to support the canvas spec because it is small, maps well to their 2d apis and is supported well by other vendors, it is in demand. It costs relatively little to support canvas. Approx $15k per implementation. Again, if a corporation is trying to implement a subset of the web platform that won't actually run the web, I'm completely uninterested in helping them do so (as, I suspect, is every other browser implementor on this list). We should not be encouraging this sort of behavior, and I won't waste my time on it. They can invent their own proprietary APIs, rather than burdening the entire web with things that can be solved better with other existing web technologies. If you meant something else by your comment, could you clarify? ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2011 00:53:15 UTC