Re: hit regions Firefox support update

Rich Schwerdtfeger

Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote on 02/17/2014 12:49:54 PM:

> From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
> To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
> Cc: Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@google.com>, Rik Cabanier
> <cabanier@gmail.com>, Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com>,
> "public-canvas-api@w3.org" <public-canvas-api@w3.org>, Mark Sadecki
> <mark@w3.org>, Jay Munro <jaymunro@microsoft.com>
> Date: 02/17/2014 12:50 PM
> Subject: Re: hit regions Firefox support update
>
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
> >
> > So, are you telling me that the WhatWg will not make its way in to the
> > W3C spec?
>
> I have no idea what this means.
>
>
> > Note: I am not copying anything. I am simply commenting on what was put

> > in FF.
>
> Your e-mail said "One concern I have about the current hit region spec",
> which suggests you were commenting on a spec, not an implementation.
>
>
> > Also, if you are asking for our input you are asking for our
contributions.
> > As you can see there are problems with the current WhatWG spec.
> > I did not make the decision to use the WhatWG implementation.
>
> What I am asking is that discussions of changes to the WHATWG spec happen

> in the WHATWG mailing list or on bugs in the WHATWG HTML component, and
> that the W3C stop forking APIs written at the WHATWG.
>
> Posting feedback on this list doesn't result in changes to the WHATWG
> spec, since this list is about the W3C spec, not the WHATWG spec.
>
> I do welcome your input. Please send it to either the WHATWG list, or
file
> bugs on the WHATWG spec: http://whatwg.org/newbug
>
> What I do not welcome is another round of the W3C forking technologies
> maintained by the WHATWG, as was done with the focus APIs.
>
> Either:
>
>  - work with the WHATWG, on the WHATWG list and with the WHATWG product
in
>    Bugzilla, referencing the WHATWG spec, etc, or,
>
>  - invent your own APIs without copying the WHATWG work.
>
Ian, it goes like this. Clearly WHATWG has another agenda to control what
goes into the Web (at least to me). It is my understanding that this stuff
is part of HTML.next which I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, meant would flow
into W3C specs as implementations occurred. IBM has joined the W3C effort
and this discussion began as an issue with the W3C specification. There are
IP issues beyond this discussion which have not been addressed by numerous
W3C members when you say go participate in the WHATWG discussion.

I am allowed to participate in a W3C discussion on the topic. The Mozilla
guys chose to implement what is in the WhatWG spec. as a vehicle to address
accessibility issues encountered in the W3C specification. Your API for hit
testing was in the W3C spec. at one time. If your intent is for us to
provide input to WhatWG with no path to a W3C spec. I cannot support that.
If the intent is to provide feedback to the WhatWG spec. with the knowledge
that it will end up in the W3C spec. then I am fine doing that. I need you
to coordinate the efforts with the W3C editors. I do not want to get
involved in another tif between W3C and WhatWG.

By your stating that we are copying WHATWG work (which by the way had not
been implemented until Mozilla gave it a try). You are telling me that
WhatWG controls that spec. and it is not free and publicly available for
others to participate in without your taking ownership. IBM has not signed
any agreement with such an entity to do that.

What I am asking of you is to facilitate coordination with W3C. My intent
is not to try and fork anyone's spec. It is simply to try and produce
something that will work in browsers and for developers.

When IBM started the ARIA work we did not go out and try to produce a spec.
that we controlled. We brought it to the W3C where all members could
knowingly understand and sign off on the IP policy and participate as a
team. You are asking me to do something different to provide feedback to
you for which you will adopt changes if you like and only if you like and
it may never find its way to a W3C spec. I have no knowledge of where you
came up with that spec. text - whether you came up with it or it came from
someone else's work. ... Only your word that you originated it. I am not
allowed to play in that space are most W3C members - including in fact
Microsoft.


> The current thing where you take WHATWG work, change it, and publish it,
> is not acceptable and is actively harming the Web due to the resulting
> confusion amongst implementors and developers.
>

I am not publishing anything. I don't see my name as an editor on the
canvas spec. Please work out these issues so we can avoid these types of
frustrating discussions. Right now your interaction and attempts to control
the Web are harming the Web. If you want to avoid confusion (which I am
loaded with right now) please find out a coordination path for your work
with the W3C.

Thank you,
Rich




> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>