W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2012

Re: [whatwg] [canvas] Path object

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:17:14 -0700
Message-id: <4CFDB02C-DDF3-43F5-912F-E1F2B3BF5365@apple.com>
To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

Charles,

Your whole message here is bizarre and disruptive:

- Your claims about the data gathering capabilities of varying browser vendors are arbitrary, incorrect (in the cases I know of), and off-topic for this list.
- Your reference to "the Hixie-Atkins draft" is unwarranted and strange.
- There has been no announcement of HTML6, let alone a schedule for it.
- Mysteriously citing "an Apple employee" also seems strange and rude.

Please reconsider this style of communication, and let's stick to discussion of actual technical issues on this list.

Regards,
Maciej

On Oct 2, 2012, at 6:22 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:

> On Oct 2, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> What of the fact that this breaks existing pages with <input
>>>>> id="Path"> that access it as just Path? Historically this has been a
>>>>> non-starter for new APIs.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Surely it's not a non-starter in general, or else no new APIs could ever be
>>> added to the platform--at worst it just means picking a less generic name.
>>> I assume that's not strictly needed; "URL" must be a more common ID than
>>> "Path".  ("Path" makes me think of URL paths, though.  Something like
>>> "DrawPath" would be a little clearer.)
>> 
>> What about unifying all of these as:
>> 
>> new GraphicsPath()
>> new GraphicsLinearGradient()
>> new GraphicsRadialGradient()
>> new GraphicsPattern()
>> 
>> and fixing HTML5 canvas to support these new constructors instead?
>> 
>> I'm a little surprised about the window.URL change that went through
>> recently. There must be tons of <input id="URL">'s around, and lots of
>> old form generating code accessed them through window.id.
>> 
>> @hixie: How was it decided that this wasn't going to break the web?
> 
> 
> Mozilla has a massive platform for collecting and analyzing user/software feedback. I'd imagine they've got good metrics on web-breaking moves. Chrome, from my experience, relies on bug reports on their issues site; Microsoft and Apple go slow and keep things opaque/in-house. WHATWG watches, suggests and makes changes based on the eventual consensus.
> 
> As for html5 Canvas; other than the accessibility issues addressed in the past two years, I wouldn't say it's broken. We're now looking at a new version of it. I think it was called version 5 by Hixie.
> 
> I wanted vendors to solidify consensus on a version close to what currently exists, with minor changes for accessibility. The WHATWG and W3C have chosen instead to make broad changes, as proposed in version 5/the Hixie-Atkins draft.
> 
> So, it's on the table. As always, browser vendors will decide on the actual direction.
> 
> I'm still for making a snapshot with createPath and an opaque CanvasPath, and saving version 5 for the more distant 3-year future and HTML6. The W3C and WHATWG have gone ahead with version 5, with support from an Apple employee.
> 
> -Charles
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 03:17:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:10 GMT