Re: CfC: Close ISSUE-201: canvas-fallback by Amicable Resolution

Richard,

I'm glad that Ted has loosened the restrictions on elements within the 
Canvas sub-tree.

I'm running some final tests on:
context = document.createElement('canvas').getContext('2d');
CanvasPath = context.createPath();
'and'; context.beginPath(CanvasPath);
'as well as'; context.measureText().baseline;

It took two years for big-browser representatives to agree that the 
methods should even exist.

Unfortunately [baring in mind, we did use the same tactics], the 
consensus was hijacked by other agendas and folded into a large 
work-package. It's a shame that the chairs discarded the prior CP and 
patches.
I'll post back onto public-canvas-api with my status on pushing this 
part of the 2011 - 2012-08 working draft into the WebKit code base.

Though flustered by the Hixie-Atkins counter-proposal, I'm reassured by 
WHATWG precedent that the spec will follow the least resistance in 
implementation.

Given how easy it is to actually follow the instructions we outlined in 
2010 - 2012, I am hopeful that Mozilla and the WebKit consortium will 
accept these simple patch sets, and that other closed source 
implementations will follow given the rather low-investment it requires 
to address the deficiencies we've identified.

On the topic of lightweight objects: having seen several vendors comment 
that canvas sub-tree objects are already lightweight, I don't see much 
reason to implement the lightweight objects API. However, if I do 
contribute to that method, I will ensure it implements ARIA 1.0, 
understanding that the Atkins-Hixie specification merely calls for the 
implementation of the ARIA "role" and "label" methods.



On a personal note:
I have invested quite a bit in implementing W3C drafts, only to be 
rebuffed by W3C members about my use cases. I've Canvas 2d as specified 
[for years] in several web applications, and faced abuse from W3C 
contributing members; I've followed up with AT software testing, only to 
be rebuffed again by W3C contributing members.

I'd hoped for leadership from W3C chairs in identifying minority 
interests. Instead, I've seen them guard their egos, unable to grant due 
moderation to simple subjects around implementation. Their inability to 
treat or moderate invited experts well, their inability moderate the 
continued "controversy" around ARIA and longdesc; their absolute neglect 
toward long-standing interests such as pen input, is disappointing. I am 
not a paid contributor, and while I will continue to send public e-mails 
to the public-canvas-api mailing list, as well as other public lists, I 
will no longer volunteer my "invited expertise" to the W3C as it exists 
today. I've seen too many good people have their time and their good 
faith abused under the supervision of this leadership.


-Charles

On 8/27/2012 10:19 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>
> Thank you Charles. I believe Ted, Frank, and I have a very amicable 
> proposal to address hit testing (Ted's revised joint proposal). Ted 
> had removed the restrictions on fallback content (where elements that 
> were not standard controls would throw an exception would throw an 
> exception during the binding) which both Maciej, you, Frank, and I had 
> issues with.
>
> I will direct IBM product teams to use DOM elements for fallback 
> content vs. lightweight objects where accessibility is needed. This 
> approach will also address testing by accessibility test tools.
>
> Rich
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
> Inactive hide details for Charles Pritchard ---08/25/2012 06:04:28 
> AM---On 8/25/2012 2:30 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > As you indicateCharles 
> Pritchard ---08/25/2012 06:04:28 AM---On 8/25/2012 2:30 AM, Sam Ruby 
> wrote: > As you indicate above, a lot of great progress has been made
>
> From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
> To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>,
> Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Frank Olivier 
> <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, 
> "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "Edward O'Connor" 
> <eoconnor@apple.com>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
> Date: 08/25/2012 06:04 AM
> Subject: Re: CfC: Close ISSUE-201: canvas-fallback by Amicable Resolution
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> On 8/25/2012 2:30 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > As you indicate above, a lot of great progress has been made.
> > Upsetting the apple cart at the last minute with no proposal in hand
> > seems broken.
> >
> > I would not be optimistic about an extension being granted.  As an
> > example, and given what I have seen so far, I don't support it.
>
> I withdraw my objection.
>
>
> -Charles
>
>