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

On 08/25/2012 03:41 AM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/index.php?title=User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-201&oldid=13386
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.

By your own link, you have been aware of this issue for many months, and 
have yet to make a proposal.   To date, the feedback we have been 
gathering does not support granting this request.

> 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:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2010Jul/0148.html
>
> 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.

As you indicate above, a lot of great progress has been made.  Upsetting 
the apple cart at the last minute with no proposal in hand seems broken.

I would not be optimistic about an extension being granted.  As an 
example, and given what I have seen so far, I don't support it.

> -Charles

- Sam Ruby

Received on Saturday, 25 August 2012 09:30:33 UTC