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

Sam Ruby wrote:
> 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
I responded to Maciej on the www-archives list, Sam.


Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 20:31:40 UTC