This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 8331 - Move the Canvas 2D context API into a separate spec
Summary: Move the Canvas 2D context API into a separate spec
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: pre-LC1 HTML Canvas 2D Context (editor: Ian Hickson) (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview...
Whiteboard:
Keywords: NE
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2009-11-18 23:29 UTC by Adrian Bateman [MSFT]
Modified: 2010-10-21 18:29 UTC (History)
7 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Adrian Bateman [MSFT] 2009-11-18 23:29:03 UTC
As discussed on the mailing list and F2F at TPAC, we propose that the API for the Canvas 2D context be defined in a separate document:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/canvas-api/canvas-2d-api.html

The canvas element itself should still be defined in HTML5 and so section 2 of the new document should be removed from the draft. If the working group agrees to this change then a new Bugzilla component should be created and then a new bug can be filed to ensure this section is removed.
Comment 1 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2010-01-08 06:17:06 UTC
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Accepted
Change Description: see diff given below
Rationale: The 2D API is is not yet widely used and could be used from other specifications.
Comment 2 contributor 2010-01-08 06:17:59 UTC
Checked in as WHATWG revision r4543.
Check-in comment: Splitting out the 2D Context spec.
http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=4542&to=4543
Comment 3 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2010-01-08 06:47:56 UTC
Actually that should be:
http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=4543&to=4544
Comment 4 Shelley Powers 2010-01-11 16:09:18 UTC
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/98
Comment 5 Maciej Stachowiak 2010-01-11 16:31:59 UTC
I have closed the tracker issue because it was an inappropriate use of the tracker per the Decision Policy. Any objection to the contents of separate drafts should be pursued against those drafts.
Comment 6 Shelley Powers 2010-01-30 14:32:50 UTC
Two separate Canvas API specifications have now been created, seemingly separate from each other. 

Though the Canvas 2D API has been split out of the HTML5 specification, which separate document to pursue, and by which editor or group of editors, was not resolved. 

I tried to initiate a tracker issue to ensure that this was handled sufficiently, but was told I was out of order. However, I do believe that the procedures in the HTML WG do allow for the re-opening of a bug, if a member of the group feels the bug was not satisfactorily resolved. 

Either editors from both documents agree to work on the same document, and both are listed as editors, or we need to resolve who is the better editor, who has the time to edit the document properly. 
Comment 7 Sam Ruby 2010-02-03 22:03:51 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)
> Two separate Canvas API specifications have now been created, seemingly
> separate from each other. 
> 
> Though the Canvas 2D API has been split out of the HTML5 specification, which
> separate document to pursue, and by which editor or group of editors, was not
> resolved. 
> 
> I tried to initiate a tracker issue to ensure that this was handled
> sufficiently, but was told I was out of order. However, I do believe that the
> procedures in the HTML WG do allow for the re-opening of a bug, if a member of
> the group feels the bug was not satisfactorily resolved. 
> 
> Either editors from both documents agree to work on the same document, and both
> are listed as editors, or we need to resolve who is the better editor, who has
> the time to edit the document properly. 

Ideally bug reports would identify a specific, correctable, technical deficiency that could be addressed.  I don't see that here.

At a minimum, I don't believe that anybody should be listed as an editor without their concurrence.
Comment 8 Shelley Powers 2010-02-04 00:27:45 UTC
I've reset the status back to FIXED.