- From: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
- Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 15:40:49 +0300
- To: Frederico Knabben <f.knabben@cksource.com>
- Cc: Johannes Wilm <johannes@fiduswriter.org>, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen <hsteen@mozilla.com>, "public-editing-tf@w3.org" <public-editing-tf@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Frederico Knabben <f.knabben@cksource.com> wrote: > Well, I should have been stopped exactly here. Both contenteditable=true and > execCommand ARE parts of a W3C recommendation: > http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/editing.html#editing-0 > > Which, in the case of cE=true, it specs it (minimally) but in case of > execCommand, it points back to the Editing TF. > > So, one option maybe be: > > * Warning that for cE=true no further work will be done on it (no > deprecation, just freezing). > * Deprecate execCommand (and similars) without spec’ing them, as they are > not spec’ed in a recommendation but are mentioned. It does not spec the behavior of contenteditable=true, it only specs the existence of the attribute. Behavior is covered by the editing spec, same as execCommand(). On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Johannes Wilm <johannes@fiduswriter.org> wrote: > My experience with the bugs I have filed with browsers is that they don't > care about it. My experience as someone who somewhat works on Mozilla's editor component is that 95% of the time, we don't care about it. But occasionally we do try to fix a bug for some weird reason. :) Actually, there's at least one bug that someone is right now working on fixing. So it has been known to happen! And in those odd cases a spec could be useful (if anyone understood it but me).
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2015 12:41:38 UTC