- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:42:55 -0500
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: public-canvas-api@w3.org, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Doug Schepers<schepers@w3.org> 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. Sorry. > >> 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. > Good! > >> 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 >> HTML WG, > > 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. Shelley
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 01:43:37 UTC