- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:28:21 -0400
- To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
- CC: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Adrian Bateman wrote: > On Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:37 PM, Shelley Powers wrote: >> Sam Ruby wrote: >>> I will also say that while I truly did not have an idea how the >>> current poll would end up (and even though there does appear to >>> be a trend at the moment, I'm still not certain), I do have a >>> strong intuition on what the consensus would be on canvas at the >>> moment. > >> The current working group may consider that the current charter can >> be stretched to include Canvas, but I'm not sure others outside of >> the group would agree. (Though I'm not sure that the working group >> of today would necessarily vote the same -- the makeup of the group >> is different. Views about the Canvas element are also different. ) > > My understanding is that the WG decision was that canvas was in scope > for the working group. The mail documenting the decision [1] > indicates that there was some support for the 2D context API being > documented separately: > > We also note support for splitting the immediate mode graphics API > out of the HTML 5 spec and inten to pursue that option by recruiting > writing resources. > http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tactics-gapi-canvas/results#xq3 > > I don't know whether having the <canvas> element defined in the HTML > 5 spec but the graphics API in a separate document solves the > accessibility issue at the root of this thread. I suspect there is > some relationship since a different API would likely require > different accessibility support. > > Nonetheless, I think Microsoft would support that separation since, > amongst other things, it would allow the graphics API to proceed in > the longer term on a different rhythm to the HTML 5 spec itself. Now that's a different matter. I previously was reacting mainly to Shelley's assertion that it is out of scope[2]. If we agree that it is in scope, and if the discussion is about whether the existing spec language into one or possibly multiple documents, then that's a decision that hasn't been made yet, and I would hope that anybody who wanted to raise an issue along these lines would do so before Last Call, and ideally would have a discussion, concrete rationale, and possibly even a concrete proposal on how to do this. > Cheers, > > Adrian. > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Dec/0094.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0619.html
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 00:29:05 UTC