W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > December 2007

[HTML5] results of CANVAS & immediate mode graphics API Questionnaire

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:44:29 +0000
To: alfred.s.gilman@ieee.org, wai-xtech@w3.org
Message-Id: <20071205225740.M58645@hicom.net>


this is a follow-up to my post of 29 November 2007, archived at:


in which i broke down the Results of the HTML WG Questionnaire: "How 
should work on the canvas element and immediate mode graphics API 

The questionnaire was open from 2007-11-16 to 2007-11-28. The results 
of this questionnaire are available to anybody at:


36 answers were received, while there were 456 "Non-Responders" listed


the thread on the CANVAS survey on the HTML WG's emailing list, 
public-html, begins with DanC's announcement, archived at:


Rich Schwerdtfeger's posts to public-html on the topic are archived at:


what follows are my answers and comments -- the results document contains
all of the comments of the 36 responders, but they are stuffed into a 
table, which, actually, apparently works better for me with speech than 
a lot of those using their eyes, with or without magnification...

---------- Forwarded Message -----------
From: webmaster@w3.org (WBS Mailer on behalf of oedipus@hicom.net)
To: oedipus@hicom.net
Sent: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:02:02 +0000
Subject: [wbs] response to 'How should work on the canvas element and 
immediate mode graphics API proceed?'

The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'How should work
on the canvas element and immediate mode graphics API proceed?' (HTML
Working Group) for Gregory Rosmaita.

1. Canvas and immediate mode graphics API introductory/tutorial note
Should the Working Group produce a note to supplement the detailed
specification, similar to Offline Web Applications? That is: a sort of
extended abstract
that might grow into a tutorial.

 * (x) No, don't do that
 * ( ) Yes, somebody should do that
 * ( ) Yes, I'm interested to do that


Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments):

2. Should the HTML WG charter be modified to more explicitly include 
canvas and immediate mode graphics?
Note discussion 19 November where some WG participants consider this
implicitly in the scope of our March 2007 charter under "Forms and common
UI widgets such as progress bars, datagrids, menus, and other controls"
but others would prefer to make it more explicit in the charter.

The chairs are obliged to keep the Hypertext Coordination
Group, the W3C Director, and the W3C membership informed about issues on
the edge of our scope. But first we'd like advice from WG participants.
Should a revised charter be reviewed by the W3C membership per section 5.3
Modification of an Activity of the W3C Process document?

If so, please suggest specific changes in a comment.

 * ( ) Yes
 * (x) No
 * ( ) Concur (cast vote with the majority)
 * ( ) Blank vote

it is not in the purview of the HTML WG or the Markup Activity, but
belongs in the Graphics activity (http://www.w3.org/Graphics/Activity)
Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments):

3. Are you interested to work on splitting the immediate mode graphics API
out of the HTML 5 spec?
Some WG participants have argued that the canvas API is an odd fit for the
HTML 5 specification; are you interested to work on splitting it out?

If so, please note your qualifications and availability in a comment.
Would you like to edit it? Review it? Do you have general technical
writing qualifications? Graphics API design experience?

 * ( ) Yes
 * (x) No

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
the CANVAS API is an odd fit for the HTML5 editor's draft because it
doesn't belong in the HTML5 specification, but -- if split out of the
HTML5 editors' draft, the canvas API should be submitted to the Graphics

4. Where should work on the immediate mode graphics API concentrate?
Among the W3C Activities are Graphics, with SVG and WebCGM working groups,
as well as a Rich Web Client Activity with a WebAPI WG working on
XMLHTTPRequest and such. We could migrate work on the canvas API to one of
those groups or a new W3C working group.

We could also refine the organization of the HTML WG by making a new  task
force, drawn from this HTML WG and/or other WGs.

If you're interested in a leadership role in work on Canvas, please note
your qualifications and availability. (If you are already visibly active
in canvas development, this is perhaps unnecessary.)

 * Keep using public-html@w3.org: [ 1 + (lowest) ] 
 * Make a new task force within the HTML WG: [ 1 + (lowest) ] 
 * Make a task force and invite participation from WGs in the Graphics and
Rich Web Client activities.: [ 2 ++ ] 
 * charter a new W3C working group for the 2d graphics API: [ 5 +++++
(highest) ]

the new W3C WG for a canvas API should be developed by and within the
Graphics activity at W3C

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
i would have voted zero for the first 2 options offered if that choice had
been available

These answers were last modified on 21 November 2007 at 17:59:53 U.T.C.
by Gregory Rosmaita

Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tactics-gapi-canvas/ until 2007-11-23.


 The Automatic WBS Mailer
------- End of Forwarded Message -------

A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking.
                                                      -- Arthur Bloc
   Gregory J. Rosmaita - oedipus@hicom.net AND gregory@ubats.org
        Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 23:44:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:51:34 UTC