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

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 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.

Maciej: Characterizing Shelley's statement as a threat is not helpful.

Shelley: the current operating assumption is that splitting canvas out 
is a lot of work for very little gain.  You've made great progress in 
identifying the gain in terms that people here can understand.  What's 
needed is progress on the other side.  The reality is that canvas will 
not be removed from any W3C draft of HTML5 (Ian's or otherwise) until 
there is a credible possibility that it can be done.  Showing your 
intermediary work (and it can even be on your own site) is an important 
part of that process.

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

- Sam Ruby

Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 19:25:24 UTC