- From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:03:21 -0800
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Dan, I think Maciej's point is that the survey doesn't distinguish between: "I want canvas in HTML5, and I believe it's already covered by the charter" "I want canvas in HTML5, but we need to recharter to cover it" "I don't want canvas in HTML5 (we should charter a different WG to do it)" "I don't want canvas in HTML5 (go away)" The latest survey still doesn't (particularly, the difference between the first two is significant). Maciej, does that echo your concern? -Chris -----Original Message----- From: public-html-wg-announce-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-wg-announce-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dan Connolly Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 2:03 PM To: public-html@w3.org Cc: public-html-wg-announce Subject: Re: SURVEY: Accept requirement for immediate mode graphics a la canvas element? On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 10:20 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: > Please answer right away! > You may update your response over the course of the week. > http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/ Several people said that including the possible charter impact in this question was unhelpful; I'm persuaded, so I moved it to a separate tactics survey, which also discusses a possible supplementary tutorial document, a task force, etc... http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tactics-gapi-canvas/ I may continue to tweak them today, so if the exact wording matters to you, check again later in the week. Perhaps it's best to consider all surveys subject to change on the first day... -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 16 November 2007 23:05:56 UTC