W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > November 2007

results of HTML5 WG Survey on CANVAS and immediate mode graphics

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:44:03 +0000
To: wai-xtech@w3.org, brewer@w3.org
Cc: wai-liaison@w3.org
Message-Id: <20071129191353.M3821@hicom.net>

aloha, all!

the html working group was asked to vote on a questionnaire entitled,
"How should work on the canvas element and immediate mode graphics API 

the questionnaire was open from 2007-11-16 to 2007-11-28, and 36 
answers were received.

the questionnaire was divided into the following specific questions:

1. release Canvas and immediate mode graphics API introductory/tutorial 

2. Should the HTML WG charter be modified to more explicitly include 
canvas and immediate mode graphics?

3. Are you interested to work on splitting the immediate mode graphics 
API out of the HTML 5 spec?

4. Where should work on the immediate mode graphics API concentrate?

the results of the questionnaire (which are viewable by anyone) are 
logged at:


here is a summary of the results, but i would highly recommend visiting
the results page whose URI appears immediately above this paragraph to 
peruse the comments of individual WG members:

1. Should the Working Group produce a note to supplement the detailed 
specification, similar to Offline Web Applications? That is: a sort of 
extended abstract that might grow into a tutorial.

  * No, don't do that: 14 
  * Yes, somebody should do that: 15 
  * Yes, I'm interested to do that: 2 

2. Note discussion 19 November where some WG participants consider this 
implicitly in the scope of our March 2007 charter under "Forms and common 
UI widgets such as progress bars, datagrids, menus, and other controls" 
but others would prefer to make it more explicit in the charter.

The chairs are obliged to keep the Hypertext Coordination Group, the W3C 
Director, and the W3C membership informed about issues on the edge of our 
scope. But first we'd like advice from WG participants. Should a revised 
charter be reviewed by the W3C membership per section 5.3 Modification of 
an Activity of the W3C Process document?

Results for Question 2:
  * yes: 2 
  * no: 29 
  * concur with majority: 5 
  * abstain  

3. Some WG participants have argued that the canvas API is an odd fit for 
the HTML 5 specification; are you interested to work on splitting it out?

If so, please note your qualifications and availability in a comment. 
Would you like to edit it? Review it? Do you have general technical 
writing qualifications? Graphics API design experience?

  * yes: 5 
  * no: 30 
  * note: 1 response didn't contain an answer to this question

4. Among the W3C Activities are Graphics, with SVG and WebCGM working 
groups, as well as a Rich Web Client Activity with a WebAPI WG working on 
XMLHTTPRequest and such. We could migrate work on the canvas API to one 
of those groups or a new W3C working group.

We could also refine the organization of the HTML WG by making a new task 
force, drawn from this HTML WG and/or other WGs.

If you're interested in a leadership role in work on Canvas, please note 
your qualifications and availability. (If you are already visibly active 
in canvas development, this is perhaps unnecessary.)

Summary of Results for Question 4:

(note: responders were asked to assign a numerical value to indicate 
their level of support, with 1 indicating strong disagreement and 5 
indicating strong agreement; a "No opinion" choice was also available)

  * Keep using public-html@w3.org
      + strongly disagree: 4
      + disagree: 1
      + neutral: 3
      * agree: 1
      + strongly agree: 23
      + no opinion: 4

  * Make a new task force within the HTML WG
      + strongly disagree: 12
      + disagree: 6
      + neutral: 8
      * agree: 1
      + strongly agree: 1
      + no opinion: 8

  * Make a task force and invite participation from WGs in the Graphics 
    and Rich Web Client activities.  
      + strongly disagree: 8
      + disagree: 8
      + neutral: 5
      * agree: 3
      + strongly agree: 4
      + no opinion: 8

  * charter a new W3C working group for the 2d graphics API      
      + strongly disagree: 23
      + disagree: 2
      + neutral: NONE
      * agree: 2
      + strongly agree: 2
      + no opinion: 7

Averages for Question 4:
  * Keep using public-html@w3.org: 4.19 
  * Make a new task force within the HTML WG: 2.04 
  * Make a task force and invite participation from WGs in the Graphics
    and Rich Web Client activities: 2.54 
  * charter a new W3C working group for the 2d graphics API: 1.55 

a few threads on public-html on the topic of the questionnaire and the 
issues it sought to address can be found by following the thread that 
dangles from the following:

 * http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0220.html
 * http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0241.html

also of interest are the comments by ian hickson (a.k.a. hixie), the 
HTML5 draft's co-editor, on the lingering issue of whether the HTML WG
should release the HTML5 editors draft as the WG's first public draft:

 * http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0423.html

although the entire thread is of interest, there is a VERY pertinent
response to ian hickson by dan connolly, co-chair of the HTML WG:

 * http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0427.html

i hope that this update assists WAI participants in keeping current with 
developments in the HTML WG that materially affect our activities; please
let me know on-list if any of this needs further clarification,

You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of
focus.                                           -- Mark Twain
Gregory J. Rosmaita: oedipus@hicom.net
   Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/
          Oedipus' Online Complex: http://my.opera.com/oedipus
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 19:44:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:58:28 UTC