- From: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:03:20 -0700
- To: public-html@w3.org
Hi all, I wrote: > Frank and I got together today and went through the remaining > ISSUE-201 items. I've made a pass at updating my Change Proposal to reflect what came out of that meeting. The updated proposal is available here: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-201 Please review this updated proposal and let me know if I missed anything. Here's the diff from the previous version of the proposal: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/index.php?title=User%3AEoconnor%2FISSUE-201&diff=13191&oldid=12969 >> [Frank's CP only] A method ( clearElementPath() ) to remove hit >> regions. I think we should have this in the joint proposal, as relying >> on ClearRect or other drawing mechanisms to clear an association seems >> overly involved and a burden on the author. > > We both agreed that having a clearElementPath() method makes sense. To keep the method names aligned, I've added removeHitRegion() to my proposal. >> r7025 - Add ellipse support to canvas. not needed, not accessibility > Agreed; can wait. > >> r7026 - Add SVG paths to Path objects in canvas. > Agreed, can wait. I removed these revisions from the list of revisions to restore. >> r7028 - add dashed lines and change how Path objects work to instead >> use external line and font styles and transformation objects > > I need to look at this in more detail to see if the refactoring is > necessary to make Path sufficiently useful. I think leaving this in is probably necessary to keep the Path definition sane. >> r7033 - More font metrics. > Definitely helps wit hit testing runs of text, so I'd prefer to keep > this in. That said, I can live with putting it off until HTML.next. > >> r7034 - Path copy constructor > I don't see the harm in keeping it, but like the font metrics, I can > live with putting it off as well. I removed these revisions from the list of revisions to restore. Rich wrote, in <OF2EA82CD1.735CE9CF-ON86257A2A.006A8BD4-86257A2A.006ADC8C@us.ibm.com>: > Does this mean that the ligtweight JSON objects will be an html.next > discussion item? Sorry, I failed to mention unbacked region descriptions in my summary email of the conversation I had with Frank. I argued for keeping them in this version of the feature. I think Frank could live with that, but I don't want to put words in his mouth. Frank, what do you think? I haven't changed this aspect of my proposal. Ted
Received on Friday, 29 June 2012 22:03:49 UTC