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

On 8/22/2012 10:11 AM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> On 8/22/2012 9:54 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On 08/22/2012 12:23 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
>>> 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
>>> 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.
>> The chairs are not likely to grant an unbounded request for 
>> additional time. 
> Please extend the deadline to Sept 7th.

I've not heard back on my request for an extension.

While I believe we have the pieces of an "amicable" resolution to 
ISSUE-201, we have some significant issues with the active CP referenced 
here. There are over a dozen changes being introduced in the Eoconnor 
CP, most of them are irrelevant or unnecessary to solving ISSUE-201. For 
instance, as a "positive effect" the author lists "Authors can easily 
draw dashed lines and ellipses". Further, instead of composing an actual 
proposal, the author simply blankets a reinstatement of eight major 
patches to the Canvas specification.

I'd wager that not even Eoconnor knows what the actual, concrete, result 
of his proposal would be. That's a problem.
The original author of those changes introduced them not under the 
context of ISSUE-201, but with the following statement: "I just added a 
bunch of things to the <canvas> 2D API".

I will submit a CP addressing ISSUE-201 directly. I will also submit 
follow-ups to the other proposals put forward in the Eoconnor document: 
I do not believe they are relevant to solving ISSUE-201, but they are 
clearly relevant to the author of the CP, and to the chairs, as the 
chairs have stated that [new] editors will be directed to apply the 
changes without further vetting.


 From a retrospective: We worked for several years to gain a consensus 
amongst vendors and editors about ISSUE-201. For most of that time, much 
of the group was against supporting canvas hit regions. With hundreds of 
hours of work, we now have an atmosphere where the majority of the group 
agrees that canvas hit regions should be supported. That is the big win, 
and we have it. We also were able to establish that the baseline 
information of the current font should be exposed to authors.

Here I am, in 2010, requesting access to baseline information:

The amount of push-back I received from that message was absolutely 
astounding. We are now in a place where it's universally accepted that 
the descent metric should be available.

My point is, we made a lot of progress in changing minds. There is 
universal agreement that ISSUE-201 should be resolved with a method 
which takes the current path, and accepts an element as a single 
argument, that pointer events should forward and that the region 
information of that element should match the bounds of the path 
specified. We have universal agreement that the vertical offset 
resulting from setting textBaseline should be exposed to authors.

That's what we needed to resolve ISSUE-201, it took years to get it, and 
we have it now. I appreciate that the chairs want these issues resolved. 
We're doing that, and we have a more appropriate atmosphere to finish 
the work and complete this version of Canvas 2D.


Received on Saturday, 25 August 2012 07:41:38 UTC