W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

RE: The Canvas 2D API split

From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:48:27 +0000
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Eliot Graff <eliotgra@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <104E6B5B6535E849970CDFBB1C5216EB1D06BB19@TK5EX14MBXC140.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On Monday, January 11, 2010 10:17 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:
> Shelley Powers wrote (on 1/10/10 10:10 AM):
> > Now, Ian has created a split[3], but there's no connection between it
> > and the previous work, and nothing from the originators of the
> > original split whether they're interesting in supporting one or the
> > other[4].
> I do find it odd that Ian split off the Canvas Context from the HTML5
> spec without discussion about the previous split-off spec, but then I'm
> sure he found it odd that I split off the Canvas API spec without a group
> decision either.

To be fair, Ian created the split as a response to the bug I filed (as requested by Sam) requesting this change. This was based on all the previous discussions on this topic. Eliot has been continuing to edit the document that Doug started and put a fair amount of effort into this. The content of the spec has been in some limbo waiting for the split from the main HTML5 spec to happen. As I proposed previously, I think Eliot's version should be modified to delete section 2 and only define the 2D context API. I believe this is compatible with the change Ian has made.

> > More importantly, we need to determine the proper home for the 2D API.
> > I do not believe the HTML WG is it. I do believe that it should have
> > its own working group, and had thought the effort to create the group
> > was underway.
> I strongly disagree with this.  Because of publication history, there has
> already been an IP commitment by all the members of the HTML WG, and
> starting a new group would require all parties to join that WG, in order
> to get the same IP commitment; this is not reasonable.

The HTML working group already made a formal decision that canvas was in scope.

This was the basis for my proposing the separate canvas spec.

> > Though I agree with splitting the 2D API out of the HTML document, I
> > don't believe the split should be impulsive, and without review and
> > careful consideration. Or that we allow this seeming disconnect
> > between the past effort and this week's effort to continue.
> That seems like a reasonable stance.  I am happy to join in discussions
> of a reconciliation and merger of the specs.  At the same time, let's not
> inject too much overhead into the process; there seems to be general
> agreement (Even among the editors) that a separate Canvas API spec is
> good, let's start from a position of that agreement, and progress from
> there.

We've been trying to follow the process. I filed a bug. Ian dealt with and resolved the bug. If Ian had disagreed then I would have written a change proposal. With the change incorporated into the spec, we now need to address the issue of where the canvas API is defined. Eliot is now intending to update his draft to be compatible with the split that Ian has made. Ian also has an API draft.  With the work that Eliot has put into editing the version he took on from Doug, we'd like to continue to edit that document. The document isn't ready for FPWD yet but we'd like to move in that direction. Alternatively, Ian's document might be the definitive 2D API and that move to FPWD. The working group should come to agreement about which outcome is desirable.


Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 19:50:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:56 UTC