W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > August 2009

Re: who would be interested in working with a Canvas object/2D API separate group

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:30:25 -0500
Message-ID: <4A8477E1.4090008@burningbird.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>> What makes you think I haven't been doing any kind of edits, to match 
>> any of the criticisms I've made[1]. I don't whip things out 
>> half-assed. I won't put anything online until I know I've gone 
>> through it and made sure all the i's are dotted, the t's crossed. It 
>> doesn't have to be bullet proof, but I would hope it could withstand 
>> at least a little shaking.
> I have no way of knowing the content of your private edits. For edits 
> to be relevant for the group to consider, we have to see it. If you'd 
> like to post something, I'd be glad to provide technical review.

I wrote this specifically to note that I'm aware that people would like 
to see me produce spec text, but that I'm slowish in writing it, and I 
fit it around my work. No other reason than acknowledge that I'm aware 
people are expecting to see something from me.

>> I realize that others may be faster, and that's cool. I admire people 
>> who can put together a spec document quick as an eye blink. I can't. 
>> So don't assume because I haven't whipped anything out that I'm not 
>> making edits to the copy of the HTML 5 document I downloaded.
>> Frankly, I'm not so sanguine about the whole "create alternative spec 
>> text and submit it for discussion", as others seem to be. I'll wait 
>> and see what happens with Manu's spec text, but how the third poll 
>> question is worded seems to make it especially difficult for Manu's 
>> work to succeed. I'm assuming the same fate rests with other efforts, 
>> too. But that's just me, others could be more positive about the 
>> approach.
> I think breaking out portions of the spec where Ian agrees in 
> principle with the split has a decent track record. XMLHttpRequest, 
> MIMESNIFF, WEBADDRESS/IRIbis, WebSocket, Web Storage and Web Database 
> have all been successfully split out, the last three by Hixie himself. 
> That being said, it's a lot of work and a big ongoing time commitment 
> to edit a breakout spec. I know because I tried once and failed. I 
> made a split out Window Object spec which fell way behind and which I 
> had to abandon.

This to me represents a fundamental difference between us. I don't 
believe it sould be up to Ian to get "permission" to do anything with 
this specification. I also think it's abysmal that the W3C would allow 
itself to get into a position where one person determines the course of 
a specification underlying the future of the web.

I'm also aware that there is a significant amount of work with this 
effort, re: my note that began this email.

>> But this isn't about me, or about who is tweaking the text. People 
>> have expressed interest in being involved in this effort. I want to 
>> see if this interest still exists. If not, then I won't bring up this 
>> issue again to this group. I will still do the edits, because I want 
>> to show what my changes would look like, for my own sense of 
>> accomplishment. I won't dump them on the group, though. Frankly, I'll 
>> most likely just quit, and do my own thing in my own space. I have a 
>> couple of raised issues, but I have no concerns that one at least 
>> will find a new owner (Issue 76). And chances are, no one is 
>> interested in the other (Issue 77), anyway, and it can just be closed.
> Threatening to quit (for the umpteenth time) is not constructive and 
> not a good use of the group's time. I know this mailing list can be 
> tense at times, but no one is attacking you here. I believe the 
> majority of the group is totally open to RenderContext2D and the 
> related interfaces being split into a separate spec, if an editor 
> steps up. No one is stopping you from becoming that person.
Rather than this be a threat, this is my way of telling the group, 
reassuring the group, that I was not going to continue to bring this 
issue up. You must have read *my sentence following the one that seemed 
to trigger your anger. Note my earlier emails on this topic, when I 
asked for direction on how to handle this,  because I was trying to find 
a way to make a proposal, to specify a concern, without someone in the 
group getting on my case, and being treated with hostility.

I've decided it is impossible.

As for being a "quitter" I never wanted to be part of this group. I 
joined only with great reluctance, and only because I thought I could 
help improve the HTML 5 specification. Evidently, that is also impossible.

> Regards,
> Maciej
>> *Believe it or not, I have no interest in wasting the group's time.
>> Shelley
>> [1] http://realtech.burningbird.net/html5-story-progress

Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 20:31:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:34 UTC