W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2010

RE: Documents not in scope for HTML-WG

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 13:32:27 -0800
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org)" <mike@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D73720E@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
Thanks for the history! 

> The current state, as I understand it, is that the WG has concurrence by 
> the Director for over two years to include Immediate Mode Graphics and 
> canvas element.

I think your opinion is clear, and I disagree
whatever discussions that took place then
(whether it was a 'decision') covered the 
current question, which is to FPWD Canvas 2D
as a separate document in this working group.

As a courtesy to you, I've included you in the
conversation, but I don't expect to convince
you.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net



-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net] 
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 9:56 AM
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: Anne van Kesteren; Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org); Philippe Le Hegaret; www-archive; Maciej Stachowiak; Paul Cotton; Manu Sporny
Subject: Re: Documents not in scope for HTML-WG

Larry Masinter wrote:
> I know the working group decided that two years ago! 
> 
> However, Working Groups do not have the authority to change
> their charter. The charter is established by the director
> after discussion by the AC. The AC discussion explicitly
> removed 2D graphics from the charter, if you look at the
> record, there was an earlier draft of the charter with
> 2D graphics that was explicitly removed.
> 
> So, it's fine. I'm not bringing this up in the working
> group because the working group decision was clear.
> 
> I think it would be fine to update the charter to include
> 2D Context as actually within scope if that's what the
> working group proposes and the Director and AC agree.

That, too, was discussed.  See issue 38:

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/38?changelog 

> I wouldn't object to that.
> 
> But the W3C AC actually discusses charters, comes to
> agreement about scope, and the discussions about charter
> scope are intense, careful, and the wordings chosen 
> carefully. Companies decide whether or not to join a
> working group and who to send as representatives based
> on what the charter says. 
> 
> So my point stands: whether or not the working group
> decided to include this material, it is out of scope
> for the current charter.

The current state, as I understand it, is that the WG has concurrence by 
the Director for over two years to include Immediate Mode Graphics and 
canvas element.

> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net


- Sam Ruby

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@opera.com] 
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 8:29 AM
> To: Larry Masinter; Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org); Philippe Le Hegaret
> Cc: www-archive; Maciej Stachowiak; Paul Cotton; Sam Ruby; Manu Sporny
> Subject: Re: Documents not in scope for HTML-WG
> 
> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:16:43 +0100, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>  
> wrote:
>> None of RDFa, Microdata  or 2D Context, are in scope for the current  
>> HTML working group charter.
> 
> Well, at least for 2D Context the Working Group decided over two years ago  
> that it is:
> 
>    http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/15

> 
> 

Received on Friday, 5 February 2010 21:33:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:28 GMT