W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Revert request r7023

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:07:39 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+ri+VmkMhT3LDzLcUVJez6EEqd_oXtscjapHx1sEjr+0dFR7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Hi charles,
while I understand your position I would suggest the best way forward is to
file bugs against the spec and then follow the usual escalation process if

We saw what happened last time the canvas spec was reverted, it stalled it
for 1/2 a year and we cannot afford that to happen again.

best regards

On 14 March 2012 01:16, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:

> The HTML editor recently made a wide reaching, unilateral change to the
> Canvas 2D specification from its Last Call presentation.
> Note the large change in IDL between these two Working Drafts.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/**2dcontext/ <http://www.w3.org/TR/2dcontext/>
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/**2dcontext/Overview.html<http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/Overview.html>
> http://html5.org/tools/web-**apps-tracker?from=7022&to=7023<http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=7022&to=7023>
> While I appreciate his attention to the Canvas 2D spec, I would hope that
> his changes would reflect existing vendor implementations and/or group
> consensus about late alterations to the Canvas 2D specification.
> I'm concerned that the change will create undo burden on implementers and
> authors. A much simpler change set was proposed last year and has not been
> addressed by the editor.
> It's my contention that the editor's "Path" object, as it is authored, is
> not appropriate for Canvas 2D but may be appropriate for SVG2. An
> alternative "CanvasPath" object, much simpler and effective, was proposed
> last year.
> The editor did not originate this API, and should be taking greater care
> to follow its structure as part of its independent maintenence. Instead, it
> seems to be suffering from a lot of instability, instability which is
> harming implementation of needed features as commented on by responders of
> the Last Call poll.
> I'd like to see this specification working for LC, not burdened with
> guesstimates as to what implementers are willing to endure on their journey
> across time with the one true HTML Editor.
> -Charles

with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 10:08:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:50 UTC