On Feb 5, 2010, at 1:51 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > Larry Masinter wrote: >> Thanks for the history! >>> The current state, as I understand it, is that the WG has concurrence by >>> the Director for over two years to include Immediate Mode Graphics and >>> canvas element. >> I think your opinion is clear, and I disagree >> whatever discussions that took place then >> (whether it was a 'decision') covered the current question, which is to FPWD >> Canvas 2D >> as a separate document in this working group. >> As a courtesy to you, I've included you in the >> conversation, but I don't expect to convince >> you. > > I will confess that I don't fully understand your position then. As I see > it, a topic is either in scope or out of scope for a given working group. > Splitting a topic that is in scope for a given working group out into a > separate document doesn't make the topic potentially suddenly out of scope.
I had the same reaction as Sam. A topic does not suddenly go out of scope by being split into a separate document. > The three current chairs, as well as PLH, had this specific discussion with > T-BL, and he not only didn't have any concern over splitting the spec up, he > positively encouraged us. In addition to the information Sam gave, the idea of splitting the canvas API into a separate document was considered and discussed at the time the scope decision was made, as a separate question from either accepting the requirement or changing the charter. See the survey results for a sampling of the discussion: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/req-gapi-canvas/results http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/tactics-gapi-canvas/results Note that there were several participants who supported including canvas, did not think a charter change was required, and at the same time were supportive of the idea of splitting the canvas API, given someone with the time and willingness to do the work. No one seemed to think that such a split would put canvas potentially out of scope. Regards, Maciej
