W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Revert request r7023

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:35:52 -0700
Message-Id: <1C30252E-0394-4490-B583-F998F4B22240@jumis.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
As I recall the editor forked the spec and threatened to resign from editing because of a chair decision to include a  method recommended by the group.

Regardless of his tactics, vendors have been moving forward, but slowly.

I'd prefer that the spec was fixed instead of reverted.

At present, it seems that vendor cooperation outside of the spec drafts is a better way forward. The editor has typically changed specs to reflect actual implementations.

Again, I'm uncomfortable handing yet another chunk of web standards to one person. So it goes.

I'll move away from spec contributions and over to implementation.

-Charles



On Mar 14, 2012, at 3:07 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi charles, 
> while I understand your position I would suggest the best way forward is to file bugs against the spec and then follow the usual escalation process if needed.
> 
> We saw what happened last time the canvas spec was reverted, it stalled it for 1/2 a year and we cannot afford that to happen again.
> 
> best regards
> stevef
> 
> 
> 
> On 14 March 2012 01:16, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:
> The HTML editor recently made a wide reaching, unilateral change to the Canvas 2D specification from its Last Call presentation.
> 
> Note the large change in IDL between these two Working Drafts.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2dcontext/
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/Overview.html
> http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=7022&to=7023
> 
> While I appreciate his attention to the Canvas 2D spec, I would hope that his changes would reflect existing vendor implementations and/or group consensus about late alterations to the Canvas 2D specification.
> 
> I'm concerned that the change will create undo burden on implementers and authors. A much simpler change set was proposed last year and has not been addressed by the editor.
> 
> It's my contention that the editor's "Path" object, as it is authored, is not appropriate for Canvas 2D but may be appropriate for SVG2. An alternative "CanvasPath" object, much simpler and effective, was proposed last year.
> 
> The editor did not originate this API, and should be taking greater care to follow its structure as part of its independent maintenence. Instead, it seems to be suffering from a lot of instability, instability which is harming implementation of needed features as commented on by responders of the Last Call poll.
> 
> I'd like to see this specification working for LC, not burdened with guesstimates as to what implementers are willing to endure on their journey across time with the one true HTML Editor.
> 
> -Charles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> with regards
> 
> Steve Faulkner
> Technical Director - TPG
> 
> www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com | www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives - dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
> Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 16:36:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:30 UTC