- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:46:15 -0700
- To: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
NB The original issue isn't one I raised, but since I have a proposal in development that relies on this I thought I would at least try to explain my understanding. On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:20:41 -0700, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 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 ... > 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. In the related case of ISSUE-74: The specification doesn't describe the current behaviour of browsers with canvas, which allows authors to create an image map that refers to regions of the canvas, analagously to the way image maps currently work for images. Further, the change proposal I am creating proposes a method to make canvas-based applications more accessible based on this current browser behaviour, because this paves existing cowpaths developers are familiar with rather than expecting them to write all their own new code. Presumably, this standalone proposal covers something similar, although for a more limited set of use cases. > Could you clarify what it is I am supposed to be writing a proposal for? Since you think the proposal was a bad idea, there must be a counter proposal you can write that isn't a bad idea. Given that the proposal is "Add an attribute", (and assuming that it copies the sentence or so to give you complete explicit editing instructions to execute the proposal), I would expect a counter proposal that explains *why* it is a bad idea to document the existing behaviour of browsers in this way. Just my 2c cheers -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2010 23:47:10 UTC