Sam, Ian,
This is the change based on what I believe to be the chairs decision with a
bug correction to ensure the blink rate returns the appropriate data time
as specified by WebIDL. It preserves canDrawCustom and does not apply the
baseline change but incorporates the other changes in our change proposal.
(See attached file: canvascarseldecision20110426.html)
Rich
Rich Schwerdtfeger
CTO Accessibility Software Group
From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
To: public-html@w3.org
Date: 04/26/2011 08:46 AM
Subject: Re: CP is incoherent, and the decision is a vague change to the
CP
Sent by: public-html-request@w3.org
On 04/26/2011 08:59 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
> The problem we have now is that the chairs have not yet responded to:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0496.html
Applying the decision as stated and reopening the issue based on new
information are two separate events.
> Until that is done Ian does not know what to do as our change proposal
> requires that canDrawCustom be removed. Currently the Canvas 2D API
> spec. has a bug whereby it allows the author to draw a custom focus ring
> without using the drawFocusRing() function to drive the magnifier.
The decision is clear here: "The change to remove the canDrawCustom
parameter from drawFocusRing is not adopted."
> If the chairs accept the change to remove canDrawCustom then Ian can
> take my spec. text change in the Change Proposal. There is nothing vague
> about doing a cut and paste of the sections. All changes are delimitted
> by <ZZZ> and </ZZZ> as has been requested.
Those changes certainly are clear.
Ian: what is the problem here?
> Rich
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
> CTO Accessibility Software Group
- Sam Ruby
