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

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