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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
