Re: Canvas 2D API specification update

On Oct 21, 2009, at 3:30 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  
> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 21, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Dailey, David P. wrote:
>>
>>> Hostility? Hmmm... I didn't see that here. Can you direct us to  
>>> specific
>>> referents?
>>
>> This is why I said "past attitude". I'd like to know what the current
>> attitude is.
>>
>> (Some of the past material I am referring to include Chris Wilson's  
>> strong
>> advocacy to remove all of canvas from the spec and indeed from the  
>> HTML
>> Working Group entirely; his statements that it might not be  
>> possible to
>> implement on top of GDI; and his raising of vague patent concerns.)
>>
>> I don't want to go digging through the archives and the Web for  
>> smoking
>> guns, I'd just like to understand Microsoft's current intent. If  
>> the goal is
>> to edit a spec that every browser but IE implements, then as one of  
>> Apple's
>> representatives I am not comfortable with that. If Microsoft is  
>> interested
>> in coming into the canvas-implementing fold, then I am much more  
>> positively
>> disposed.
>>
>
> That's a concern. I thought that Apple turned over the Canvas element
> to the HTML WG. I wasn't aware that there were strings attached.

I did not claim Apple has any special privileges here. The situation  
just strikes me as an odd conflict of interest. Imagine if, say, Henri  
Sivonen volunteered to edit HTML+RDFa. You would probably be  
suspicious and would not expect him to have the best interests of the  
RDFa community at heart, since his track record is one of generally  
opposing the technology. (Sorry for using you in a hypothetical Henri!)

Regards,
Maciej

P.S. For the sake of correcting the historical record, Apple never  
"turned over the Canvas element" to anyone. Canvas started out as a  
browser-specific extension and was not originally envisioned as being  
for public Web content (probably short-sighted on our parts). Then it  
was added to WHATWG Web Apps 1.0 without consulting us, and later  
included in HTML5 when published as a Working Draft by the HTML WG. At  
that time of FPWD we satisfied the Patent Policy requirements for our  
related patents. We have been supportive of keeping it in the spec,  
and have had to make major changes to our implementation to match the  
standard. At no point did we say "HTML Working Group, please take this  
over," it just happened, as with other formerly proprietary extensions  
that are now part of the HTML5 spec.