HTML5 ISSUE-15 immediate-mode-graphics proposal carries over objections [FWD]

---------- Forwarded Message -----------
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
To: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Sent: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:06:09 -0600
Subject: ISSUE-15 immediate-mode-graphics proposal carries over objections

Thanks to everyone who participated in the formal survey
as well as the surrounding discussion...
Accept requirement for immediate mode graphics a la canvas element?
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/results

Statistics: yes 40 no 10 concur 7 abstain 3
so the 7 concur votes add to the yes total.

Philip Taylor argued to divide the question and advised
that we don't conflate multiple questions in the future.
The advice for future questions is noted, but to
divide this question does not seem cost-effective.

Jens Meiert argues:
Cons have been stronger so far, especially the “questioned need” and
“potential solution” arguments. But a critical mass of the WG
seems to think otherwise.

James Cassell gave no argument to support his 'no' response.
Likewise Danny Liang and Jason Lefkowitz.

Gregory Rosmaita argues that "CANVAS is incapable of providing
semantics, while with SVG, one can apply semantic relationships."
But that's largely true of scripting in general, and it's not
constructive to ask scripting developers to look elsewhere than W3C
for their solutions; at least if W3C provides a scripting
solution, we can remind them about accessibility while we're
specifying it.

IBM's response is:
  an immediate mode graphics API and canvas element would clearly
  be a good thing; my only issue is the scope question, which
  the separate survey doesn't adequately address in my opinion.
  Please treat this answer as if it were "yes, but only if the
  charter was modified first".

Sam Ruby has since written:

 Given that there is evident widespread support for this feature,
 and no  specific proposals to revise the charter have surfaced, I
 would like to  amend my vote at this time to be an "abstain".
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Dec/0012.html

Microsoft's response is:

 Although the idea of a standardized immediate mode graphics api
 is a good one, I have two objections - first, that I believe
 this requirement is not captured within the current HTML5 charter,
 as it is not a semantic API; secondly, that HTML5 already must cover
 a lot of ground, and graphics are a very specialized field. It would
 be radically better to have different group of people representing
 the expertise in this field, and those people are not all
 interested in the rest of HTML5.

The co-chairs note Microsoft's objection and agree to
review it with The Director at their earliest convenience,
consulting with The Director about the way our March 2007
charter expresses the scope of this working group.

While popular opinion among HTML WG participants supports
continuing with our present charter and collaboration
mechanics, the chairs note that the WG is only part
of the community that the charter serves and the chairs
feel obliged to pursue several of the options in
the tactics survey; in particular, modifying
the charter
 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tactics-gapi-canvas/results#xq2
and inviting Graphics Activity participants
to a joint task-force.
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tactics-gapi-canvas/results#xwhowhere

We also note support for splitting the immediate mode graphics API
out of the HTML 5 spec and inten to pursue that option by
recruiting writing resources.
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tactics-gapi-canvas/results#xq3

Despite lack of consensus, unless and until new information arises
that merits reconsidering the issue, we are resolved to close
ISSUE-15 immediate-mode-graphics by accepting
a requirement for an immediate mode graphics API and canvas element.

-- 
Dan Connolly and Chris Wilson, HTML Working Group co-chairs
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/
------- End of Forwarded Message -------

Received on Saturday, 8 December 2007 19:49:03 UTC