Re: Canvas 2D API specification update

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> 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!)

If Henri volunteered to help with RDFa, I'm fall on his neck with
thankfulness, and sacrifice a chicken at midnight, in thanks. I think
that Manu would agree with me.

After all, in the end, whatever gets created has to be vetted by all
of us. And who better to know how to answer the concerns in a spec
than those most concerned. It does no good to have only one person, or
a couple of like mind working on a spec -- you want to ensure an
entire audience is covered, not just those of like mind.

And I respect Henri's ability. I don't have to agree with him to
respect his capability.


> 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.
>

I wonder if this is where some of Microsoft's concern about patents
arose in the past. I'm assuming by this you mean that there won't be a
patent concern. I imagine if Canvas is split out, we'll have to vet
the separate document for patents, but it should still not be a
problem, if I understand what you're saying. (Not being overly
familiar with how the whole patent thing works).

And I can respect your concern, as a member of the HTML WG. After all
you want to ensure the best effort is made on Canvas. Understandable.

Shelley


>

Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 23:01:56 UTC