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

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Doug Schepers<> wrote:
> Hi, Shelley-
> Shelley Powers wrote (on 8/13/09 2:28 PM):
>> 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.
> Luckily, I do. :)
>> 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 used a standard font-family, so I'm assuming all the (lowercase) i's are
> dotted and the t's are crossed.  (Sorry, saw an opportunity for a joke
> there.)
>> 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.
> It wasn't quite an eyeblink, but I harvested the fruits of my misspent
> adulthood putting stuff into W3C-spec format, so I hope that this serves as
> an easier template for you (and other potential committed editors) to make
> incremental changes to the Canvas 2D API spec, rather than the more daunting
> HTML5 spec as a whole.
>> 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.
> I would love to see some or all of your edits folded into this split-out
> draft.  Personally, I would prefer to have a little friendly discussion
> about them first, just to make sure we aren't doing an end-run around the
> consensus of opinion in the HTML WG (particularly the implementers who would
> have to reify the spec), but I'm quite happy to have you edit it, or to fold
> in any edits myself if anyone doesn't want to take the time or trouble to do
> it.
>> 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 have mixed feelings about Sam's approach as well, but I hope for the best.
>  However, the Canvas 2D API spec is not so much intended as an alternate,
> competing spec, but rather as a supplementary spin-off, like Web Storage,
> Web Workers, et al.  As such, it would not be a competing choice between
> drafts, and there shouldn't be any confusion which spec is definitive for
> the Canvas 2D API functionality.
> That said, I don't know if this will ultimately be published as its own
> spec, folded back into HTML5, or abandoned.  That's up to the HTML WG.
> I hope we are realistic about this approach... if we don't get commitment to
> implement what the spec says, then the effort goes nowhere.  Despite his
> statements against consensus, Ian has gotten consensus from at least one
> constituency: the browser vendors.  We need to maintain and build upon that
> consensus in order to keep the good will of all parties toward making Canvas
> accessible, useful, and successful.
> Regards-
> -Doug Schepers
> W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs

Hi Doug,

A little surprised that you responded to this email. This email was a
response specifically to Maciej because of an exchange we had, and I
had posted it in www-archives, not public-html.  That's cool that you
responded to it, but you seem to have misunderstood the point I was
trying to make to Maciej.

I am currently tech editing two books, writing a third for O'Reilly
that's probably going to be close to 700 pages in length, providing
support for my other 6 six books currently in print, and trying to get
two others ready for self-publication--all work I have to do to pay
the bills. I could take the time to split the text out, but the work
was going to have to be worked into my schedule, and therefore
probably slower than most folks in this list like.

I'm glad that you did the split, and I appreciate your help and your
willingness to take the time to help enable this process.

I don't really agree that the API should be under the ownership of the
HTML WG, but splitting it out into a spin off is probably OK. I'm not
quite sure how these spin-offs work, especially from a deadline

I agree with your absorption of the interface element into the
specification. I'll most likely address that separately in the thread.



Received on Monday, 17 August 2009 22:51:08 UTC