Re: [w3c/editing] Removal of browser built-in Undo stack functionality from contenteditable (#150)

Well, yes, of course we should list your editor especially if it has a
substantial user base and is used in production.
But the questions are because part of what we are doing is try to find out
if we are covering all use cases with the standards we are working on.
ExecCommand is nor among these because we currently believe that JavaScript
libraries are better suited for this. Yet you are still using execCommand
so then the question for us is if we overlooked something and if maybe
there is a usecase where execCommand is needed anyway.

On Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 14:18 tszynalski <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> @johanneswilm <https://github.com/johanneswilm> I'm not sure we should
> discuss my design decisions at length here -- this is, after all, a place
> for discussing Web standards. I wrote my comment, because I wanted to point
> out that some people *do* in fact use execCommand(). In my case, it's a
> good solution despite various shortcomings, some of which you have brought
> up. A third-party JS editor would probably work, too, but it would be much
> heavier and slower, while not adding much value for my particular use case.
>
> If you would like to discuss my site in detail, you can also email me at
> the address found on www.typeit.org.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/w3c/editing/issues/150?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAERMOG52C7OJ4TJUDGVDY3QVZXSTA5CNFSM4CQW2SH2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEFJPBQI#issuecomment-559083713>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAERMOD6XJE5243BRRVNXI3QVZXSTANCNFSM4CQW2SHQ>
> .
>


-- 
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/150#issuecomment-559091752