- From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:22:25 -0800
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Sorry, question wasn't clear. Actually, NO, I don't think the charter should be amended; I DO think a revised charter should be reviewed; if the WG is to take on this work, however, I believe it must be in the charter. I would prefer immediate-mode 2D graphics to be part of the graphics effort. -Chris -----Original Message----- From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 1:58 PM To: Chris Wilson; Sam Ruby; Julian Reschke Cc: Michael(tm) Smith; www-archive Subject: suggested wording for HTML WG charter about canvas and immediate mode graphics? Chris, Julian, You said "yes" to: "Should a revised charter be reviewed by the W3C membership per section 5.3 Modification of an Activity of the W3C Process document?" -- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tactics-gapi-canvas/results#xq2 Note the request just below the question: "If so, please suggest specific changes in a comment." Would you please suggest some specific changes that would satisfy you? Likewise, Sam, you wrote: Please treat this answer as if it were "yes, but only if the charter was modified first". -- http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/results Please suggest a change that would satisfy you. Note that since there isn't consensus to accept a canvas requirement, it's up to the chairs to figure out whether the question carries. I'd like to know if there's a straightforward charter change that will satisfy the dissenters while I'm thinking it over and talking it over with my co-chair in the next few days. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 3 December 2007 23:22:44 UTC