Re: Canvas 2D API specification update - defining the element or not

Cynthia Shelly wrote:
> I actually think that the relative lack of maturity of the accessibility pieces of Canvas is one of the reasons it should be broken out of the HTML 5 spec.  That would allow it to proceed on its own timeline, with enough time to design the required accessibility features.

My first reaction to separating Canvas from the HTML5 spec was positive 
since I believe there's no way to address accessibility sufficiently in 
time for a Last Call, and because other parts like Geolocation have been 
successfully separated before.  Also we are now speaking of the 2D 
context, soon there needs to be an extension (I admit I still love the X 
of XHTML) for 3D anyway.

Like Cynthia said, in its own timeline there will be the time to find 
solutions for the issues, that's certainly an advantage.  However I'm 
afraid that taking it out of the general spec won't prevent browser 
vendors from implementation, sans accessibility, which is inacceptable.

Also there's the risk of fragmentation: from my naive standpoint I 
thought a separation means that the Canvas spec is standalone, that it 
defines everything you need as an author or implementor.  If only one 
part is in the Canvas spec and another in the HTML5 spec (i.e. more than 
just the definition of the element itself and its two attributes), this 
will be the source of confusion.

Most of the discussion focuses on the best technical way for separation, 
so I think the last point will be considered.

But I'd like to question if this is the right path to get to our goal: a 
timely implementation of accessible solutions in browsers supporting 
HTML5.  Do we really gain time by separation?  Is it possible to even 
gain speed with a highly motivated expert team focusing on this single 
issue?  Can we ensure that implementors of HTML5 regard the Canvas spec, 
or is keeping it together a better strategy?

What's your opinion?

Cheers,
   Martin


P.S.: I propose to put the Canvas spec issue on the agenda of next 
week's telcon.

Received on Friday, 23 October 2009 11:40:15 UTC