Re: who would be interested in working with a Canvas object/2D API separate group

On Aug 13, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:

> What makes you think I haven't been doing any kind of edits, to  
> match any of the criticisms I've made[1]. I don't whip things out  
> half-assed. I won't put anything online until I know I've gone  
> through it and made sure all the i's are dotted, the t's crossed. It  
> doesn't have to be bullet proof, but I would hope it could withstand  
> at least a little shaking.

I have no way of knowing the content of your private edits. For edits  
to be relevant for the group to consider, we have to see it. If you'd  
like to post something, I'd be glad to provide technical review.

> I realize that others may be faster, and that's cool. I admire  
> people who can put together a spec document quick as an eye blink. I  
> can't. So don't assume because I haven't whipped anything out that  
> I'm not making edits to the copy of the HTML 5 document I downloaded.
> Frankly, I'm not so sanguine about the whole "create alternative  
> spec text and submit it for discussion", as others seem to be. I'll  
> wait and see what happens with Manu's spec text, but how the third  
> poll question is worded seems to make it especially difficult for  
> Manu's work to succeed. I'm assuming the same fate rests with other  
> efforts, too. But that's just me, others could be more positive  
> about the approach.

I think breaking out portions of the spec where Ian agrees in  
principle with the split has a decent track record. XMLHttpRequest,  
MIMESNIFF, WEBADDRESS/IRIbis, WebSocket, Web Storage and Web Database  
have all been successfully split out, the last three by Hixie himself.  
That being said, it's a lot of work and a big ongoing time commitment  
to edit a breakout spec. I know because I tried once and failed. I  
made a split out Window Object spec which fell way behind and which I  
had to abandon.

> But this isn't about me, or about who is tweaking the text. People  
> have expressed interest in being involved in this effort. I want to  
> see if this interest still exists. If not, then I won't bring up  
> this issue again to this group. I will still do the edits, because I  
> want to show what my changes would look like, for my own sense of  
> accomplishment. I won't dump them on the group, though. Frankly,  
> I'll most likely just quit, and do my own thing in my own space. I  
> have a couple of raised issues, but I have no concerns that one at  
> least will find a new owner (Issue 76). And chances are, no one is  
> interested in the other (Issue 77), anyway, and it can just be closed.

Threatening to quit (for the umpteenth time) is not constructive and  
not a good use of the group's time. I know this mailing list can be  
tense at times, but no one is attacking you here. I believe the  
majority of the group is totally open to RenderContext2D and the  
related interfaces being split into a separate spec, if an editor  
steps up. No one is stopping you from becoming that person.


> Believe it or not, I have no interest in wasting the group's time.
> Shelley
> [1]

Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 19:18:38 UTC