Re: F2F in Redmond

> On Jan 9, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Johannes Wilm <johannes@fiduswriter.org> wrote:
>> PD: I am personally fine with removing contentEditable=True entirely, if browser makers have come to the conclusion that the existing text does not make sense. But last time the question of fixing contentEditable=True vs. inventing something new came up here, others seemed to have stronger opinions about this.
>> 
>> Just adding a few people to CC who could possibly have an opinion about this.
> 
> As I think I said elsewhere, unless some implementers' opinions have
> changed, it makes sense not to bother working on a spec for
> contenteditable=true (although browsers will have their keep their
> existing implentations indefinitely for web compat).  I think it does
> make sense to make sure the existing spec is kept somewhere in case
> someone wants it someday, marked as an unmaintained historical
> document.

We're going to keep your contenteditable=true specification as a historical document for now, and we'd like to eventually bring it back once beforeinput/input events and simpler models of contenteditable (e.g. events/typing) have been agreed upon.

The document in question here is the one removed in:
https://github.com/w3c/editing/commit/5d332c0483b82420b75e13ba6c88e4c39b9d6144

which didn't have any content beyond what's included in the HTML spec:
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#contenteditable

As far as I'm concerned, the task force never agreed to produce this document in the first place, and the representatives from many browser vendors (Apple, Google, and Microsoft) agreed that this document should be removed from the repository.

- R. Niwa

Received on Saturday, 9 January 2016 20:44:42 UTC