- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:06:10 -0600
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 11:07 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 17:21 -0800, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: [...] > I encouraged the non-responders to give this information in public, > but unless and until they choose to do so, I'm not at liberty to say. After thinking about it a bit, I realize that several of the members that I contacted _have_ said, in public, things that are relevant to whether the HTML 5 spec should be published as a W3C working draft given our current charter: IBM: no: an immediate mode graphics API and canvas element would clearly be a good thing; my only issue is the scope question, which the separate survey doesn't adequately address in my opinion. Please treat this answer as if it were "yes, but only if the charter was modified first". -- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/results Nokia: yes: The main rationale behind HTML5 is Rich Web Applications, and vector graphics play a major role in this application scope. My only major concern about the canvas solution to this requirement is performance in mobile platforms. The main reason is using ECMAScript in the drawing loop. Hopefully the next version ECMAScript will enable better performing implementations (although the API should be checked wheather it can be typed). On the other hand, SVG has not been proven to perform any better in real world applications. -- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/results And of course, this was shared with the WG on 10 November: Microsoft: ChrisW: I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, I'm saying it's not in our charter. ... Our lawyers when reviewing this document wouldn't have checked for graphics patents -- http://www.w3.org/2007/11/10-html-wg-minutes.html#item04 > > 1) Which non-responders are not ok to publish? What are their > specific > > objections and how can they be addressed? Before we get to the business of addressing objections to publishing, we have to establish a critical mass of support for publishing. That's where Chris and I made the mistake. When I put the question on 2 November, I assumed that members such as Nokia and IBM and Microsoft were aware of the patent policy implications of publishing current HTML 5 specs under our current charter, and Chris assumed that Microsoft's patent review included the immediate mode graphics stuff. We're doing our level best, but we're juggling a lot of balls and we dropped a few this time. I'm sorry I raised expectations about publishing the HTML 5 spec before a critical mass of the WG was really ready. I trust we'll be ready before too much longer. Of course, it would be easier to publish the spec right away if the spec took a much more conservative position on issues such as videoaudio, immediate-mode-graphics, and offline-applications-sql. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/products/2 But perhaps those are worth the wait. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 00:06:19 UTC