- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 16:35:04 -0600
- To: public-canvas-api@w3.org
FYI, from email to the HTML WG. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 9:10 AM Subject: The Canvas 2D API split To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org> There was an original split of the Canvas 2D API[1], and an email list created, supposedly to maintain it[2]. The proposal was created before our change procedure was in place, so the item was left as a bug, and the issue was never cleanly resolved. It just went into some form of trackless limbo. Now, Ian has created a split[3], but there's no connection between it and the previous work, and nothing from the originators of the original split whether they're interesting in supporting one or the other[4]. And the split document is confusing. In contains the line: "This specification is an HTML specification. All the conformance requirements, conformance classes, definitions, dependencies, terminology, and typographical conventions described in the core HTML5 specification apply to this specification. [HTML5CORE]" Actually, it is not an HTML specification. A 2D API is not HTML. And the document references another document that has already been rejected by the group, based on the other splits and merges that happened this week. There are now two separate proposed splits, neither of which is tracked, or part of an issue, and neither is there seemingly any path forward in this group to resolve what I perceive to be a disconnect between the original bug, and this week's activity. What II'm proposing is that this bug be grandfathered into the current Change Proposal process, except that rather than muck about with the bug, we create an issue for the split. We ask Adrian Bateman, the originator of the original bug, and Doug Schepers and Eliot Graf if they concur with submitting their original document as a change proposal. We also submit Ian's as an alternative proposal, and we call for a discussion on both, as well as other proposals. We could potentially end up with a merged document as consensus, but right now, we have two documents floating around, neither of which is a FPWD, and neither of which has an official path associated with it. And I'm not terribly sure that either is a document we can live with -- a split of this magnitude should be discussed, and a formal resolution given. More importantly, we need to determine the proper home for the 2D API. I do not believe the HTML WG is it. I do believe that it should have its own working group, and had thought the effort to create the group was underway. Though I agree with splitting the 2D API out of the HTML document, I don't believe the split should be impulsive, and without review and careful consideration. Or that we allow this seeming disconnect between the past effort and this week's effort to continue. Shelley [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/canvas-api/canvas-2d-api.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-canvas-api/2009JulSep/0002.html [3] http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/Overview.html [4] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8331
Received on Sunday, 10 January 2010 22:35:33 UTC