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 09:41:03 -0700
Message-Id: <372C859C-107D-4EAB-98EA-F7121DBB81DB@jumis.com>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
To: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
I encourage vendors to act by assigning resources to produce actionable implementations. Waiting and/or following the invention of the editor is a bit backwards.

His strength is in identifying APIs common across vendors and writing them up in his document.

I've stated my concerns; I withdraw my revert request. The "bugs" in this change to Canvas are public. I'm going to work on implementation instead of pursuing bug reports and process.

-Charles

On Mar 14, 2012, at 8:35 AM, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Charles wrote:
> 
>> 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[…]
> 
> We oppose this revert request. We've been advocating for the addition of
> an exposed Path object to the <canvas> 2D Context API for a long time—it
> greatly improves the general utility of the 2D Context API, in addition
> to its obvious accessibility benefits.
> 
> I encourage other vendors supportive of this change to also speak up.
> 
> As Steve Faulkner said, Charles,
>> I would suggest the best way forward is to file bugs against the spec
>> and then follow the usual escalation process if needed.
> 
> 
> Ted
> 
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 16:41:31 UTC

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