Re: [w3c/editing] CFC: Move ExecCommand to WICG (#185)

I've voted against the CfC, but would like to respond to some claims that were made:

> Reasons for moving ExecCommand to WICG:
> * It will enable more input from the developer community

This claim is not supported by evidence. The Working Group works in public, and accepts comments from the general public. I have seen no evidence in practice that moving a spec to WICG enabled broader participation.

I am aware that the rules for contributing PRs in CGs and WGs are different, but that has no bearing on the developer community "providing input", and there has not been any PR to this spec that had to be rejected due to being submitted by a non member. Furthermore, all the relevant parties (browsers, js-based editors) are existing participants of this WG / TF, and are not all in WICG. Yes, they could become members of WICG, but going from a place where everyone is to one where everyone could be does not count as "enabling further input".

> ExecCommand will ultimately be replaced by contentEditable and Input Events

If by "be replaced", it is meant that these new specs will be the right solution to the same problem, then yes. If by "be replaced", we mean that exec command will be dropped by browsers, then that sounds unlikely. Despite all its bugs and unpleasantness, it's been part of the platform for a while, and is depended on by countless sites.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/editing/issues/185#issuecomment-438492716