On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Charles Pritchard <ch...@jumis.com> wrote: > On Oct 2, 2012, at 6:25 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Charles Pritchard <ch...@jumis.com> wrote: >>> I wanted vendors to solidify consensus on a version close to what currently >>> exists, with minor changes for accessibility. The WHATWG and W3C have >>> chosen instead to make broad changes, as proposed in version 5/the >>> Hixie-Atkins draft. >> >> Out of curiosity, why are you using the term "the Hixie-Atkins draft"? >> That usage seems bizarre. > > The two of you composed an submitted the change in its entirety; it's a large > departure in IDL from earlier drafts which reflected implementations as > initiated by Apple's draft. > > The draft is a synthesis of what appears to be two years of feedback from > developers and others on the WHATWG and W3C mailing lists. All of the methods > were first proposed in the draft; they were not proposed in their IDL form by > others. > > In it's introduction, and the discussion surrounding its introduction, I > noticed that Atkins and Hixie had worked to create a coherent proposal based > on input; Hixie has expressed directly that he'd prefer to see use cases, not > IDL/spec proposals.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I didn't write any of the canvas spec. I've given feedback on the list, but not significantly more than others interested in the topic. I did help brainstorm some of the interface stuff in #whatwg when Hixie was writing it, but so did others. Calling it the "Hixie-Atkins" draft is unwarranted and weird. Just call it the "whatwg canvas spec" or something. ~TJ
