Re: Canvas 1.0

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org> wrote:

> That sounds very reasonable to me.  I would like to see support for Hit
> Testing as well.  Any solution without it would be driven by time
> constraints.
>

Chrome tends to prefer a living standard rather than artificial time
constraints of version 1.0 of a draft. What matters to us is whether we
actually like it and whether there's consensus among the browser vendors,
not how official the draft is.

Please read over Chrome's guidelines for web platform changes:
http://www.chromium.org/blink#new-features

Dominic, do you have a sense for how complicated and/or how long it would
> take to get an implementation of a minimally acceptable version of hit
> testing?  I would also like to flesh out exactly what constitutes a
> minimally acceptable version of hit testing, but I will follow up with a
> separate email for that discussion.
>

Estimating something like this is really hard. I'm guessing only a couple
weeks of actual work including code review and testing, but since we all
have other tasks on our plates and it's just complicated enough, it might
be a few months before it's implemented.

- Dominic


>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
> >
> > - Dominic
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger <
> schwer@us.ibm.com <mailto:schwer@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi Dominic,
> >
> >     We are trying to flush out an agreement for 1.0.
> >
> >     Mozilla has implemented using the HitRegion API to bind the location
> with the fallback element. We are trying to deliver the minimal
> implementation for 1.0 that would allow us to support accessibility. We
> can't get Path done in a reasonable amount of time so we would use the
> current path. I am a bit uncomfortable about not adding actual hit testing.
> If we were to include that in the proposal would that satisfy a meets
> minimum for you for 1.0?
> >
> >     My concern about not having hit testing is mobile touch devices and
> working with AT like VoiceOver and TalkBack with touch. The question is
> should we do this in 1.0 or 2.0. Regardless we will continue to work on
> other features of hit testing API in 2.0 - such as adding Path object
> support.
> >
> >     I suspect we will also require a removehitregion in response to
> Charles later response.
> >
> >     Rich
> >
> >
> >     Rich Schwerdtfeger
> >
> >     Inactive hide details for Dominic Mazzoni ---02/24/2014 05:46:19
> PM---Wait, to clarify, addHitRegion would not actually provideDominic
> Mazzoni ---02/24/2014 05:46:19 PM---Wait, to clarify, addHitRegion would
> not actually provide hit testing? Is the idea that it'd be adde
> >
> >     From: Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@google.com <mailto:
> dmazzoni@google.com>>
> >     To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
> >     Cc: Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org <mailto:mark@w3.org>>, Rik Cabanier <
> cabanier@gmail.com <mailto:cabanier@gmail.com>>, Jatinder Mann <
> jmann@microsoft.com <mailto:jmann@microsoft.com>>, Canvas <
> public-canvas-api@w3.org <mailto:public-canvas-api@w3.org>>
> >     Date: 02/24/2014 05:46 PM
> >     Subject: Re: Canvas 1.0
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >     Wait, to clarify, addHitRegion would not actually provide hit
> testing?
> >
> >     Is the idea that it'd be added in the next spec revision? It seems
> odd to do this, the feature would ship in a way that doesn't really match
> the original intent of the spec.
> >
> >     I thought Mozilla already implemented some of the actual hit testing
> features.
> >
> >     - Dominic
> >
> >     On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger
> <_schwer@us.ibm.com_ <mailto:schwer@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
> >
> >         Hi Dominic,
> >
> >         For version of the canvas 1.0 spec. we would like to have the
> following in the specification.
> >
> >         1. addHitRegion but only with an optional id and a fallback
> element to associate the element (this will set the location).   e.g.
> addHitRegion(id,control) where control would be any fallback element at
> this time.
> >         2. drawFocusIfNeeded but remove the step that sets the location.
> >
> >         1. This would not provide actual hit testing but it would assign
> the location at this time
> >
> >         We would need you to agree and implement this in Chrome now and
> we would work to address the other additions to the addHitRegion spec.
> (from WhatWG) in v2.0. We also want your feedback on the spec. changes.
> >
> >         Rich
> >
> >         Rich Schwerdtfeger
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Mark Sadecki
> Web Accessibility Engineer
> World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
> Telephone: +1.617.715.4017
> Email: mark@w3.org
> Web: http://w3.org/People/mark
>