Re: Canvas API Editors

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Doug Schepers<> wrote:
> Hi, Shelley-
> Shelley Powers wrote (on 8/17/09 6:50 PM):
>> 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.
> No, this particular one was on public-html... the thread diverged later, I
> think.

You're right, it was the follow-up that went offline, more or less.


>>  That's cool that you
>> responded to it, but you seem to have misunderstood the point I was
>> trying to make to Maciej.
> Well, honestly, it had the hooks for me to draw you in to possibly editing,
> and a couple opportunities for drive-by jokes, so I jumped on it.


>> 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.
> Understood.  Good luck with your Grown-Up Job... it's something we all have
> to do, so I appreciate the volunteer work that everyone does in W3C when
> they have the time.

You're right, and a person really does need to have the time to
volunteer to participate. Everyone is busy.

>> 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.
> My pleasure.  I think it's often too much of a burden on people who want to
> contribute, but who have limited time, so I hope this ameliorates that.

Yours and Manu's and other efforts in this regard are appreciated by
many people. It does help.

>> I don't really agree that the API should be under the ownership of the
> I don't think it matters much where, organizationally, the spec gets done
> within W3C, but it matters a great deal from an IP commitment perspective,
> and maybe even from a implementer-incentive perspective. Certain groups are
> higher-profile, and more likely to get the attention of vendors.  (I do
> admit that the OCD part of me thinks it should be the Graphics activity, but
> that's just bookshelving.)

Yeah, I thought it was a Graphics activity, too. And others have
mentioned that also.

>> 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
>> perspective.
> In this instance, I'm not certain myself.  I'd expect that in order for it
> to be included in HTML5, it will still need an aggressive schedule, without
> which it might lose relevance... it might just get shipped in HTML5 anyway,
> if we don't resolve the outstanding issues quickly.  I don't want it to slow
> down HTML5, and I don't think anyone else does either.

A concern with this is that what happens if the accessibility effort
is going to require a significant chunk of time and work?

I'm not sure splitting the text out but tying it into the HTML 5 spec
really buys us anything. Let's say folks want to extend the 2D API
later -- does the work need to occur through the HTML WG? Does it rely
on the release of a new version of HTML?

I just don't understand how these spin-offs work. Sorry.

>> I agree with your absorption of the interface element into the
>> specification. I'll most likely address that separately in the thread.
> Thanks.  I'm not totally convinced of it myself, but it seemed like a better
> starting position than finding out we needed to add it later. Frankly, the
> spec would seems incomplete without that.  We'll see how it plays out.
> Regards-
> -Doug Schepers
> W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs

I'm reading it as a handshake, which makes a lot of sense. As you say,
we'll see how it goes.


Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 01:43:37 UTC