Re: CfC: Adopt ISSUE-105 canvas-usemap Change Proposal to add usemap attribute to the canvas element

Hi Ian,

On Jun 23, 2010, at 4:20 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On 06/23/2010 04:10 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:05 AM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net>  wrote:
>>>> We have a change proposal to modify 4.8.10 the canvas element section of
>>>> the
>>>> HTML5 specification to allow the usemap  attribute to be applied to the
>>>> canvas element:
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/addimagemaptocanvas
>>>> 
>>>> At the present time, we have no counter proposals.  Accordingly, the
>>>> chairs
>>>> are issuing a call for consensus at this time. If there are no objections,
>>>> we will adopt this change proposal on June 22, 2010.
>>> 
>>> Sorry for the delay, I missed this call. I object to this proposal,
>> 
>> Please write a counter proposal then ASAP.  If no counter proposals are
>> received, the chairs will proceed based on the one proposal received.
> 
> What is the scope of the issue? It's unclear to me what I am supposed to 
> be writing a proposal for. The description of the issue is not a problem 
> with the spec, it's just restating the request in the bug, which itself is 
> just stating that the proposal should be taken, without stating what the 
> issue is that the proposal would solve.
> 
> Could you clarify what it is I am supposed to be writing a proposal for?

Apologies for the delay in responding. After some deliberation, the chairs concluded that issues 74 and 105 are closely related and should be resolved together. While we don't want to merge them at this time, we'd like to align their timelines.

The scope of the two issues combined is canvas accessibility, and mechanisms to help provide for it. A change proposal supporting the status quo would ideally cover the following:

1) Rationale explaining why the current canvas accessibility mechanisms in the draft are sufficient.
2) Rationale explaining why specific additions that you disagree with should not be adopted (e.g. because they are unnecessary or because they cause some problem.)

You (or anyone else wishing to enter a proposal) can do this in the form of a single counter-proposal that covers the proposals submitted for issues 74 and 105 so far, or separate counter-proposals, or any other combination that seems reasonable.

Since this is a slight change of game plan, we're extending the deadlines for counter-proposals or alternate proposals for these issues until July 30th.

It is also our understanding that Chaals may submit an additional proposal that may impact the existing proposals or any defense of the status quo in the spec. Should that occur, we will likely grant extra time to revise Change Proposals as needed.

Regards,
Maciej

Received on Thursday, 8 July 2010 09:07:52 UTC