Re: [whatwg] [canvas] Path object

On Oct 2, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:

> 
> Charles,
> 
> Your whole message here is bizarre and disruptive:
> 
> - Your claims about the data gathering capabilities of varying browser vendors are arbitrary, incorrect (in the cases I know of), and off-topic for this list.


Mozilla has an extensive system for bug reporting. I suspect their switch between various versions is related to their data as captured by those systems. They have publicized how they track bug reports from the browser, and in doing so, how they analyze what "breaks the web." Posts on that system are public and available through web searches.

Additionally, anyone with a computer and a few hundred dollars can run through something like common crawl for a quantitative analysis of general HTML content.

If it's going to be more than that, I can't speak to MS and Apple practices as they are quite opaque. I can speak as a developer to another developer about Chromium practices having worked for some time to issue and follow up ok but reports with their system. I can point to release cycles, which are well documented on public sites like wikipedia.



> - Your reference to "the Hixie-Atkins draft" is unwarranted and strange.

It's been my form of reference for several months without incident.

Hixie put the proposal forward, Tab was actively discussing it on the lists, as well as a part of its synthesis. He has already spoken on the matter and you were present and subscribed to both lists it was discussed on.

I addressed Tab Atkins in my last response. Tab does have a significant role in this process, as do you, but I seem to have misinterpreted his involvement in the authoring of the versions under discussion.



> - There has been no announcement of HTML6, let alone a schedule for it.

It's referred to as "HTML next", the W3C chairs as well as the change of editors has been a signifier of HTML5 wrapping up. The phrase has been in common use for some time.

The schedule is about HTML5.


> - Mysteriously citing "an Apple employee" also seems strange and rude.

We're on the Internet, public-canvas-API is a public mailing list and the w3c is a fairly transparent organization.

There are several employees at Apple involved in the standards process. I apologize for the ambiguity.



> 
> Please reconsider this style of communication, and let's stick to discussion of actual technical issues on this list.


I've brought up versioning, API development and a prior proposal. Those are technical issues.

I also spoke to another developer about the standards process; it's a process involving people as well as the technical. If developers are going to wade into this, I'd like to share a little bit about the atomosphere; if that's a cultural issue better left off-list, then I'm afraid I have little left to offer publicly.

The W3C decision on the technical spec was quite transparent. The proposal is available on the W3C wiki and lists. Developers are free to read that log. I assume when they ask questions similar to the ones I've posed, they may be coming from a perspective similar to my own. I responded with informal but direct language about my own observations.

I'm sorry that you found them disruptive.

This has been a long process, I hope Canvas developers approaching the spec to understand some of the efforts put into it. If my efforts are counter-productive, that's certainly not my intent. I am aware of several public and private messages suggesting that my involvement is not aiding vendor-developers. I'd hoped to advocate for end-developers who are not code-contributors to browser vendors. That has been my intent.





> 
> Regards,
> Maciej
> 
> On Oct 2, 2012, at 6:22 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 2, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> What of the fact that this breaks existing pages with <input
>>>>>> id="Path"> that access it as just Path? Historically this has been a
>>>>>> non-starter for new APIs.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Surely it's not a non-starter in general, or else no new APIs could ever be
>>>> added to the platform--at worst it just means picking a less generic name.
>>>> I assume that's not strictly needed; "URL" must be a more common ID than
>>>> "Path".  ("Path" makes me think of URL paths, though.  Something like
>>>> "DrawPath" would be a little clearer.)
>>> 
>>> What about unifying all of these as:
>>> 
>>> new GraphicsPath()
>>> new GraphicsLinearGradient()
>>> new GraphicsRadialGradient()
>>> new GraphicsPattern()
>>> 
>>> and fixing HTML5 canvas to support these new constructors instead?
>>> 
>>> I'm a little surprised about the window.URL change that went through
>>> recently. There must be tons of <input id="URL">'s around, and lots of
>>> old form generating code accessed them through window.id.
>>> 
>>> @hixie: How was it decided that this wasn't going to break the web?
>> 
>> 
>> Mozilla has a massive platform for collecting and analyzing user/software feedback. I'd imagine they've got good metrics on web-breaking moves. Chrome, from my experience, relies on bug reports on their issues site; Microsoft and Apple go slow and keep things opaque/in-house. WHATWG watches, suggests and makes changes based on the eventual consensus.
>> 
>> As for html5 Canvas; other than the accessibility issues addressed in the past two years, I wouldn't say it's broken. We're now looking at a new version of it. I think it was called version 5 by Hixie.
>> 
>> I wanted vendors to solidify consensus on a version close to what currently exists, with minor changes for accessibility. The WHATWG and W3C have chosen instead to make broad changes, as proposed in version 5/the Hixie-Atkins draft.
>> 
>> So, it's on the table. As always, browser vendors will decide on the actual direction.
>> 
>> I'm still for making a snapshot with createPath and an opaque CanvasPath, and saving version 5 for the more distant 3-year future and HTML6. The W3C and WHATWG have gone ahead with version 5, with support from an Apple employee.
>> 
>> -Charles
>

Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 05:32:18 UTC