- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:26:07 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote: > 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? > ... Hi, sorry for the long delay in responding to this. I don't have a suggestion for a charter revision, indeed I'd suggest to reduce the scope of the WG, not extend it. As a matter of fact, I'd prefer it if we would remove those things from the spec which are either controversial (such as canvas) or kind of experimental (client side persistence comes to mind). I don't mind people working on these, even in W3C working groups, but it seems to me that having this stuff inside the HTML5 spec causes lots of friction leading us not to make real progress on the things that clearly should be part of HTML5. That being said, I'm pleased to hear that my concerns were listened to. In the interest of moving things forwards (and noting I'm clearly in a minority here), I'd suggest to move on with <canvas> in (with no charter change), but to keep in mind that we may want to get back to the issue of the spec being too monolithic later on. Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 16 December 2007 17:26:27 UTC