HTML Canvas 2D Context exit criteria (was RE: CfC: Request transition of HTML Canvas 2D Context to Candidate Recommendation)

All,

The HTML5 spec is scheduled to move to PR around Q4 2014 (see http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html)

The Canvas 2D editors believe that our spec should not wait that long.
The Canvas 2D spec is significantly smaller than the HTML one and is already implemented with comprehensive test suites on several browsers.
In addition, the at-risk features (such as hit regions) will most likely see significant changes in the near future and will end up in the next revision.

>From http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfi:
Duration of the implementation period: The announcement must indicate a minimal duration, before which the Working Group must not request a Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation; this minimal duration is designed to allow time for comment. The announcement should also include the Working Group's estimate of the time expected to gather sufficient implementation data.

What would be the minimal time that Canvas 2D could be in CR? (6 months?)

From: Silvia Pfeiffer [mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 4:04 AM
To: Sam Ruby
Cc: HTML WG
Subject: Re: CfC: Request transition of HTML Canvas 2D Context to Candidate Recommendation

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net<mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>> wrote:
In accordance with both the W3C process's requirement to record the group's decision to request advancement[1], and with the steps identified in the "Plan 2014" CfC[2], this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to request transition to CR for the following document:

http://htmlwg.org/cr/2dcontext/Overview.html

Silence will be taken to mean there is no objection, but positive
responses are encouraged. If there are no objections by Monday,
November 26th, this resolution will carry.

Considerations to note:

- A request to advance indicates that the Working Group believes the specification is stable and appropriate for implementation.

- The specification MAY still change based on implementation experience.

- Sam Ruby, on behalf of the W3C co-chairs

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#transition-reqs
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Oct/0026.html

(sent as invited expert)

I support transition to CR.

Regards,
Silvia.