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

Re: Revert request r7023

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:35:48 -0700
Message-ID: <4F63B234.3090007@jumis.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 3/16/2012 2:22 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 21:46:40 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. 
> <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> At the request of the chairs, I'd like to reiterate my opposal to
>> reverting this.  Same reasons as before.
> To make it more explicit, I also object to reverting this per prior 
> given arguments.

Anne, are these the arguments for keeping the HTML Path authored by Hixie?

Tab: "The Path object being added to the spec right now is a result of
addressing many bugs asking for added canvas functionality since the
last time Hixie touched that part of the spec.  Presumably if the
simpler CanvasPath addressed the use-cases implied by the bugs he's
addressing, he would have used it.  Simpler's usually better, after

Ted: "We oppose this revert request. We've been advocating for the 
addition of
an exposed Path object to the <canvas> 2D Context API for a long timeā€”it
greatly improves the general utility of the 2D Context API, in addition
to its obvious accessibility benefits."

Anne: "I clearly remember discussing this in person with you at TPAC. 
Our rather poor minutes of that meeting even captured it: 

I've provided counter-arguments to these points, but it seems my 
counter-arguments have fallen flat. In practice, I think implementers 
will repeat my recommendations, because they're simple relative to the 
HTML Path proposal. Regardless of this revert, we can cut out the 
massive IDL change and keep some of the verbiage.

Received on Friday, 16 March 2012 21:36:09 UTC

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