Re: Canvas Sub-Group Meeting Scheduled [Monday: 17 MAR 2014]

On 03/18/2014 02:35 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> We're trying to whittle down the hitRegion interface so
> - it satisfies a11y's use cases
> - it is forward compatible with the full interface
> - it has enough functionality so browsers will accept it
>
> By reading the spec more closely, it's becoming apparent that it's underspecified and people have different ideas on what it's supposed to do (especially in the area of event handling).
> I'm not all that hopeful that this will come to a non-controversial conclusion in the short term.

Reviewing the HTML WG telecon minutes, it appears that since mid January 
people have been confident that this will be resolved with the next two 
weeks or so; and I'm told this continues to be the case.  This can't 
continue.

To help resolve the issue that Rik is bringing up; the HTML WG chairs 
are asking that the two planned interoperable implementations of this 
feature be identified at this time.  If this can't be done before Canvas 
2D context, the feature will need to be marked as at risk; with the very 
real potential that it be removed at a later date.

- Sam Ruby

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Cotton [mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 11:11 AM
> To: Mark Sadecki
> Cc: Canvas; HTML A11Y TF Public; Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net); Jay Munro; Philippe Le Hegaret; Rik Cabanier; Jatinder Mann; Richard Schwerdtfeger
> Subject: RE: Canvas Sub-Group Meeting Scheduled [Monday: 17 MAR 2014]
>
> What is the status of these discussions?  I cannot tell from the minutes when the sub-group thinks it will have a revised Canvas LC draft ready for the A11Y TF and WG to approve?
>
> /paulc
>
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Sadecki [mailto:mark@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 7:28 AM
> To: Jay Munro; Philippe Le Hegaret; Rik Cabanier (cabanier@adobe.com); Jatinder Mann; Richard Schwerdtfeger
> Cc: Canvas; HTML A11Y TF Public
> Subject: Re: Canvas Sub-Group Meeting Scheduled [Monday: 17 MAR 2014]
>
> On 3/18/14, 12:10 AM, Jay Munro wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I got this note from Jacob Rossi, one of our PMs who reviewed the spec. Some food for thought.
>>
>> *         Accessing regions by a string ID seems like a clumsy API and requires me to keep my own model that tracks the regions and their IDs.
>>          o   Also the ID is optional, meaning some hit regions could be lost forever?
>>          o   I'd actually recommend just scrapping the ID concept altogether and focus on the control nodes. In fact, add/RemoveHitRegion() could just take a control as the only arg. If you want an ID, just use the ID attribute on the control node.
>>                   If IDs were scrapped, then the MouseEvent.region extension isn't needed. This would be my preference.
>>
>> *         ID string is listed as optional, control is not. But yet from the algorithm for addHitRegion(), it seems control is also optional?
>> *         The argument type for add/removeHitRegion(), HitRegionOptions, is not defined anywhere in the spec. I think this should be a dictionary type most likely.
>> *         There doesn't seem to be a way to access the collection of added hit regions. I'd expect something like context.regions to expose a collection of the added regions.
>> o   E.g. it currently seems I have to remove and add a hit region if I just want to update it. Perhaps it's felt this isn't needed in an immediate-mode graphics API?
>> *         Spec should also handle PointerEvents too!
>>
>
> Thanks for sharing this, Jay.  I have added it to the agenda for next week [1].
>   I also encourage discussion on list.
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Canvas#Next_Agenda
>
> Best,
>
> Mark
>

Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2014 20:43:34 UTC