RE: suggested wording for HTML WG charter about canvas and immediate mode graphics?

Sorry, question wasn't clear.

Actually, NO, I don't think the charter should be amended; I DO think a revised charter should be reviewed; if the WG is to take on this work, however, I believe it must be in the charter.  I would prefer immediate-mode 2D graphics to be part of the graphics effort.

-Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 1:58 PM
To: Chris Wilson; Sam Ruby; Julian Reschke
Cc: Michael(tm) Smith; www-archive
Subject: suggested wording for HTML WG charter about canvas and immediate mode graphics?

Chris, Julian,

You said "yes" to:

"Should a revised charter be reviewed by the W3C membership per section
5.3 Modification of an Activity of the W3C Process document?"
 -- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tactics-gapi-canvas/results#xq2

Note the request just below the question:

  "If so, please suggest specific changes in a comment."

Would you please suggest some specific changes that would satisfy you?

Likewise, Sam, you wrote:

  Please treat this answer as if it were "yes, but only if the
  charter was modified first".

  -- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/results

Please suggest a change that would satisfy you.

Note that since there isn't consensus to accept a
canvas requirement, it's up to the chairs to figure out whether
the question carries. I'd like to know if there's a straightforward
charter change that will satisfy the dissenters while I'm thinking
it over and talking it over with my co-chair in the next few days.

--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Monday, 3 December 2007 23:22:44 UTC