Re: Canvas 2D API specification update

This message deserves a reply, but I am going to stay out of this  
thread until I can get someone else to represent Apple's position in  
this matter. All of my remarks so far are solely on behalf of myself  
personally and Apple, but since this is a sensitive issue, I would  
like to avoid confusion with my co-chair role. It may take a few days  
to find someone else at Apple who can take up this discussion.


On Oct 22, 2009, at 1:12 AM, Daniel Glazman wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> Is Microsoft considering a Canvas implementation in IE? I must  
>> admit to having some discomfort with the spec being edited by the  
>> one implementor that has *not* implemented Canvas so far. Good  
>> future stewardship of the API requires having a stake in its  
>> success, and Microsoft's past attitude towards Canvas has been one  
>> of hostility at worst and indifference at best. It seems to me that  
>> this creates the potential for significant conflict of interest.
> [ speaking with my CSS WG co-chair hat off ]
> Ah.
> Because Hixie or his employer implemented all of the specs he edits?
> Because Fantasai in the CSS WG has implemented all the specs she  
> edits?
> Because your own company is always clean wrt standardization, always
> following up on proposals you make to WGs and in good standing in WGs?
> Because the HTML WG has so many editors handy you can refuse help?
> Because I never added features to specs that my parent company
> (Netscape at that time) disagreed with but that were decided by
> consensus in a W3C WG?
> Come on...
> I don't understand at all that position. If Microsoft expressed
> in the past disinterest about canvas, I think Eliot's email is pretty
> clear about their will to now actively contribute, at least from an
> editorial perspective.
> I'd like to understand how this will create a conflict of interest
> significantly greater than having in the past a co-chairman of this WG
> from Microsoft...
> Apparently, the work they did on the document is strictly editorial,  
> and
> I'd like also to hear why this is could be harmful in _any_ way.
> In summary, I respectfully but also strongly disagree with you. All I
> have to say, and that's of course my personal opinion only, to  
> Microsoft
> is "welcome back onboard".
> </Daniel>

Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 17:22:55 UTC