Re: CfC: Close ISSUE-201: canvas-fallback by Amicable Resolution

On 8/22/2012 6:07 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 08/02/2012 04:06 PM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>> In regards to the text in question I am prepared to withdraw my change
>> proposal in favour of Teds.
> This leaves only one active Change Proposal on this issue:
> At the current time, the chairs are issuing a call for consensus on 
> this proposal.  If anybody would like to raise an objection during
> this time, we will require them to accompany their objection with a
> concrete and complete change proposal.
> If no objections are raised to this call by August 30th, 2012, we will
> direct the editors to make the proposed change, and will only consider
> subsequently reopening this issue based on new information and a
> complete change proposal based on the spec's contents as it exists 
> after this change is applied.

The "Eoconnor" CP is a vast departure from the spec as it existed prior 
and as it is implemented.
I don't believe one week is enough time to complete and submit a 
concrete counter-proposal.

Further, the Canvas group just gained new editors; it has and will take 
them time to catch up on the discussion.

We seem to have general consensus on many of the features: supporting 
SVG path d; dashed lines, reporting the offset of text baseline
and supporting the binding of a hit region to a an element within the 

We do not have consensus about the new "Path" object, unbacked hit 
regions nor the footprint of the text baseline reporting methods.
I intend a simple, incremental change to the existing Canvas 
specification that more closely matches the design of Canvas 
implementations and consumers.


Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 16:24:19 UTC